Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Just stop. I don't know why you're trying to trash these kids, but we can all see for ourselves from the School Board meeting that you are completely full of sht.

It's really disgusting.

I'm "full of sht" huh? You sure are doing your best to trash me. It would be lovely if you were capable of engaging in a rational discussion. Since all you have is insults, it's just so clear you have no actual response. The insults are not making the AT community look very welcoming to Langston.

Anonymous wrote:Are these the Nottingham moms- how dare a school in South Arlington advocate and have an opinion?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Just stop. I don't know why you're trying to trash these kids, but we can all see for ourselves from the School Board meeting that you are completely full of sht.

It's really disgusting.

I'm "full of sht" huh? You sure are doing your best to trash me. It would be lovely if you were capable of engaging in a rational discussion. Since all you have is insults, it's just so clear you have no actual response. The insults are not making the AT community look very welcoming to Langston.

You still haven’t stated your affiliation, which if I had to guess is bridge troll.

Yup. Troll who gets off trashing kids.

Sock puppet much? You sure are on here a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Just stop. I don't know why you're trying to trash these kids, but we can all see for ourselves from the School Board meeting that you are completely full of sht.

It's really disgusting.

I'm "full of sht" huh? You sure are doing your best to trash me. It would be lovely if you were capable of engaging in a rational discussion. Since all you have is insults, it's just so clear you have no actual response. The insults are not making the AT community look very welcoming to Langston.

You still haven’t stated your affiliation, which if I had to guess is bridge troll.

Yup. Troll who gets off trashing kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Just stop. I don't know why you're trying to trash these kids, but we can all see for ourselves from the School Board meeting that you are completely full of sht.

It's really disgusting.

I'm "full of sht" huh? You sure are doing your best to trash me. It would be lovely if you were capable of engaging in a rational discussion. Since all you have is insults, it's just so clear you have no actual response. The insults are not making the AT community look very welcoming to Langston.

You still haven’t stated your affiliation, which if I had to guess is bridge troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Just stop. I don't know why you're trying to trash these kids, but we can all see for ourselves from the School Board meeting that you are completely full of sht.

It's really disgusting.

I'm "full of sht" huh? You sure are doing your best to trash me. It would be lovely if you were capable of engaging in a rational discussion. Since all you have is insults, it's just so clear you have no actual response. The insults are not making the AT community look very welcoming to Langston.

You still haven’t stated your affiliation, which if I had to guess is bridge troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Just stop. I don't know why you're trying to trash these kids, but we can all see for ourselves from the School Board meeting that you are completely full of sht.

It's really disgusting.

I'm "full of sht" huh? You sure are doing your best to trash me. It would be lovely if you were capable of engaging in a rational discussion. Since all you have is insults, it's just so clear you have no actual response. The insults are not making the AT community look very welcoming to Langston.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Just stop. I don't know why you're trying to trash these kids, but we can all see for ourselves from the School Board meeting that you are completely full of sht.

It's really disgusting.

I'm "full of sht" huh? You sure are doing your best to trash me. It would be lovely if you were capable of engaging in a rational discussion. Since all you have is insults, it's just so clear you have no actual response. The insults are not making the AT community look very welcoming to Langston.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Who is we? Are you with Langston?

That's not the right question. The right question is who YOU are. Who is opposing this while trying to pretend they are not? I'm old enough to remember when AT said we oppose this move but we really want APS to listen to Langston and we'll support if it Langston wants it. Then after Langston said yes, we want to move, AT's language shifted. They didn't support it as promised but then moved on to "concerns" about the move, such as a brand new concern about having a program with different leaders in the same building. without of course explaining what that's such a bad thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Just stop. I don't know why you're trying to trash these kids, but we can all see for ourselves from the School Board meeting that you are completely full of sht.

It's really disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Who is we? Are you with Langston?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can watch the meeting for themselves. I think we need to ignore the person who is so dug in. The real question I think it’s important to ask is why didn’t this proposal come much sooner in the process? If the goal is really to increase access for Langston students why did that just come up in the last six months? What are they planning on doing with the Langston building? APS is not being honest about the reason for this change.

I think it is because APS is heavily shuffling buildings and leases around. They see the writing on the wall, in relation to funding. They have been ridiculously overspending (iPads for every pre-K student, gobs of free programs for adults, and we have a very high needs student population. Etc.). Otherwise their shuffling of all these programs makes zero sense, and is contrary to what they shared as their vision for AT (to intensively grow it in size and reputation, among other things).

I think you’re right and wish they would be honest if it was about budget, we all know that the budget was a huge issue last year. Kim Graves told ATAC. It wasn’t about budget, the school board member told me the same. I don’t believe them.

You mean they told you it’s not about the budget? I don’t believe them either. If it’s not about the budget then just stay the course and concentrate on AT and growing that program as they had intended. Then they could still reevaluate a year or a few years later. Why the rush?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can watch the meeting for themselves. I think we need to ignore the person who is so dug in. The real question I think it’s important to ask is why didn’t this proposal come much sooner in the process? If the goal is really to increase access for Langston students why did that just come up in the last six months? What are they planning on doing with the Langston building? APS is not being honest about the reason for this change.

I think it is because APS is heavily shuffling buildings and leases around. They see the writing on the wall, in relation to funding. They have been ridiculously overspending (iPads for every pre-K student, gobs of free programs for adults, and we have a very high needs student population. Etc.). Otherwise their shuffling of all these programs makes zero sense, and is contrary to what they shared as their vision for AT (to intensively grow it in size and reputation, among other things).

I think you’re right and wish they would be honest if it was about budget, we all know that the budget was a huge issue last year. Kim Graves told ATAC. It wasn’t about budget, the school board member told me the same. I don’t believe them.