Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably an unpopular view:

I think some parents lack any kind of comprehensive vision beyond their own self-interest and they are incredibly entitled and often don't have all the information. Which they do not let stop them from taking on an accusatory, toxic, and paranoid tone. And unfortunately, this shrieking minority dominates the dialogue.

In that environment, I would not want to be an APS staff person or an APS School Board member. A thankless job.

So, I think the email was fine and said some things that needed to be said, but as this thread shows, it won't make a bit of difference to the generally toxic discourse.

And yes, I have children affected by all this.

What school are you at?

I am at a school that has been tossed out as a potential option school. That's all I'm giving.

Let me guess...no matter what you will not end up at a school with 60%+ FARMS? So it doesn't really impact you. One lily white school to another...crawl back into your McMansion lady.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably an unpopular view:

I think some parents lack any kind of comprehensive vision beyond their own self-interest and they are incredibly entitled and often don't have all the information. Which they do not let stop them from taking on an accusatory, toxic, and paranoid tone. And unfortunately, this shrieking minority dominates the dialogue.

In that environment, I would not want to be an APS staff person or an APS School Board member. A thankless job.

So, I think the email was fine and said some things that needed to be said, but as this thread shows, it won't make a bit of difference to the generally toxic discourse.

And yes, I have children affected by all this.

What school are you at?

I am at a school that has been tossed out as a potential option school. That's all I'm giving.

Anonymous wrote:Probably an unpopular view:

I think some parents lack any kind of comprehensive vision beyond their own self-interest and they are incredibly entitled and often don't have all the information. Which they do not let stop them from taking on an accusatory, toxic, and paranoid tone. And unfortunately, this shrieking minority dominates the dialogue.

In that environment, I would not want to be an APS staff person or an APS School Board member. A thankless job.

So, I think the email was fine and said some things that needed to be said, but as this thread shows, it won't make a bit of difference to the generally toxic discourse.

And yes, I have children affected by all this.

What school are you at?

Probably an unpopular view:

I think some parents lack any kind of comprehensive vision beyond their own self-interest and they are incredibly entitled and often don't have all the information. Which they do not let stop them from taking on an accusatory, toxic, and paranoid tone. And unfortunately, this shrieking minority dominates the dialogue.

In that environment, I would not want to be an APS staff person or an APS School Board member. A thankless job.

So, I think the email was fine and said some things that needed to be said, but as this thread shows, it won't make a bit of difference to the generally toxic discourse.

And yes, I have children affected by all this.

Anonymous wrote:You all keep saying that removing the Key boundary instigated all of this. I don't think that is the real issue - it is making Reed a neighborhood and not option school that started this exercise. That is what two SB members told me early on - and that this whole study was a staff idea.

That was what instigated the potential of moving Key. Because Science Focus was a school sitting outside of its boundary, the Key boundary. They had to change that.

And I guess when they had the green light to put everything on the table and they started gaming out all the potential moves (like just swapping Key and ASFS), they realized some changes could lead to crazy inefficient boundaries, or an increase in highly segregated schools, or more buses, or some other less than ideal situation.

Anonymous wrote:You all keep saying that removing the Key boundary instigated all of this. I don't think that is the real issue - it is making Reed a neighborhood and not option school that started this exercise. That is what two SB members told me early on - and that this whole study was a staff idea.

I don't think it was removing the Key boundary- I think it was the rapid growth in the NE, as well as making Reed a neighborhood school. Removing the key boundary brought it into starker contrast- but it did not create the problem.

APS has been very transparent about turning Nottingham into an Option school. Now they just need more time to make up reasons why.

^^ I agree with PP. I'm surprised by how much people are accusing APS staff of lack of transparency in this process. There has been more transparency than we have ever seen in a boundary change. If you watched the work sessions, School Board meetings, attended the walk zone breakout discussions, read the reports, etc., you can understand the rationale for all of these decisions. You might disagree, but the goals of this process have been clear. Too many people are filtering information only using DCUM and whatever change.org petition happens to reach their inbox on a given day. For a community of really educated people, it is sad how few people are really taking the time to understand the big picture goals and appreciate the complexity of what APS is trying to do here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a single reference to equity or closing achievement gaps in that long, scolding e-mail. I truly am starting to despise APS and its leadership.

I agree. I feel like we just got told off by APS and we better be prepared to be told off again by our principals.

Disagree. Unlike many school districts, APS does engage the community. It may not always change the outcomes, but I think they are at least willing to listen to potentially helpful input. The nastiness and winner-take-all attitude is appalling and this is their effort to say enough.

Disagree. Community engagement means more than a portal and some public hearings for people to express their views and then get completely ignored.

Look, I know you're used to always getting your way, but that is just not sustainable. Welcome to the world that the majority of us having been living in all along.

And then to send out an imperious e-mail asking parents to tone it down, when they are as heavy-handed and sanctimonious as they can possibly be. Blech.

The SB can dish it out but can't take it.

This isn't about being disrespectful to other communities. This is about them being criticized from every angle. In usual boundary stuff, you have a few planning units on the edges that are fired up. Here, it is entire school communities and neighborhoods. They can't handle it.

They’ve been confronted with petitions saying don’t make changes to this school, that school, ANY school. People have attempted to get their representative involved, have posted laundry lists of talking points on neighborhood listservs and social media, imploring everyone in the community to get involved to “save” their school. It’s about time the school board addressed all this ridiculousness.

You all keep saying that removing the Key boundary instigated all of this. I don't think that is the real issue - it is making Reed a neighborhood and not option school that started this exercise. That is what two SB members told me early on - and that this whole study was a staff idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now they are telling us it isn't viable to change nothing. And before anyone starts, I don't think she was referring to boundaries. I think they are talking straight to Key and saying it has to become a neighborhood school.

"

I agree with this. I don't see it as nefarious, however. I think that as they got into this process, they realized that there was no real viable way to keep Key as an option school, and be at all true to all their other stated goals. It was flunking every test as an option school.

Then they need to be honest about this. It's disingenuous to continue to say in all of their descriptions of the process that one of two options to be considered by the board will he leaving everything where it is when in reality they've already decided that option isn't viable so the staff's reconfigured proposal is the one they will approve. We're not idiots, we can see the consistencies, and APS is basicaly gaslighting us by saying they don't exist.

I'm not sure I totally follow your post, and what consistencies APS is saying doesn't exist- but that being said, here is what I think happened (and I have no inside information- I just pay way to close attention, and compulsively attend/watch meetings.) The Staff started looking at the overcrowding in the Key neighborhood, and the forecasts of space in the NW when Reed comes on line. They realized that they needed to move Key. But they wanted to be careful, methodical, and data driven, so they didn't limit themselves to Key. They floated this idea of looking at option locations to the school board at a work session in January. The school board was nervous about the proposal (go back and watch it) and so they said come back with two proposals, one with moves and one without.
The Staff will do as they are directed- but they didn't really ever think that not moving anything was an option.
They still don't think that, but they can't 'be honest' about that b/c the only one who can make that decision is the school board- and it hasn't come to them yet.

I also think at one point the Staff thought they might just be able to swap Key and ASFS- but it appears they have discarded that proposal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now they are telling us it isn't viable to change nothing. And before anyone starts, I don't think she was referring to boundaries. I think they are talking straight to Key and saying it has to become a neighborhood school.

"

I agree with this. I don't see it as nefarious, however. I think that as they got into this process, they realized that there was no real viable way to keep Key as an option school, and be at all true to all their other stated goals. It was flunking every test as an option school.

Then they need to be honest about this. It's disingenuous to continue to say in all of their descriptions of the process that one of two options to be considered by the board will he leaving everything where it is when in reality they've already decided that option isn't viable so the staff's reconfigured proposal is the one they will approve. We're not idiots, we can see the consistencies, and APS is basicaly gaslighting us by saying they don't exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Now they are telling us it isn't viable to change nothing. And before anyone starts, I don't think she was referring to boundaries. I think they are talking straight to Key and saying it has to become a neighborhood school.

"

I agree with this. I don't see it as nefarious, however. I think that as they got into this process, they realized that there was no real viable way to keep Key as an option school, and be at all true to all their other stated goals. It was flunking every test as an option school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a single reference to equity or closing achievement gaps in that long, scolding e-mail. I truly am starting to despise APS and its leadership.

I agree. I feel like we just got told off by APS and we better be prepared to be told off again by our principals.

Disagree. Unlike many school districts, APS does engage the community. It may not always change the outcomes, but I think they are at least willing to listen to potentially helpful input. The nastiness and winner-take-all attitude is appalling and this is their effort to say enough.

Disagree. Community engagement means more than a portal and some public hearings for people to express their views and then get completely ignored.

Look, I know you're used to always getting your way, but that is just not sustainable. Welcome to the world that the majority of us having been living in all along.

And then to send out an imperious e-mail asking parents to tone it down, when they are as heavy-handed and sanctimonious as they can possibly be. Blech.

The SB can dish it out but can't take it.

This isn't about being disrespectful to other communities. This is about them being criticized from every angle. In usual boundary stuff, you have a few planning units on the edges that are fired up. Here, it is entire school communities and neighborhoods. They can't handle it.

They also know they've botched this process from day one but want to shift the blame for that to the community instead. When you create a timeline that gives only two weeks between first draft analysis and final recommendation, that signals that you're expecting minor changes, if anything, because you've built in no time for further analysis and consideration after that first draft analysis. Who would expect they could upend the elementary school system with only two weeks' deliberation and the community would have no feelings about that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a single reference to equity or closing achievement gaps in that long, scolding e-mail. I truly am starting to despise APS and its leadership.

I agree. I feel like we just got told off by APS and we better be prepared to be told off again by our principals.

Disagree. Unlike many school districts, APS does engage the community. It may not always change the outcomes, but I think they are at least willing to listen to potentially helpful input. The nastiness and winner-take-all attitude is appalling and this is their effort to say enough.

Disagree. Community engagement means more than a portal and some public hearings for people to express their views and then get completely ignored.

Look, I know you're used to always getting your way, but that is just not sustainable. Welcome to the world that the majority of us having been living in all along.

And then to send out an imperious e-mail asking parents to tone it down, when they are as heavy-handed and sanctimonious as they can possibly be. Blech.

The SB can dish it out but can't take it.

This isn't about being disrespectful to other communities. This is about them being criticized from every angle. In usual boundary stuff, you have a few planning units on the edges that are fired up. Here, it is entire school communities and neighborhoods. They can't handle it.