Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish the staff would just do away with all option programs, draw lines that reduce transportation and just go that way. We can't even hire enough bus drivers here! This option BS is a relic of the past.
So you propose further segregation? Cool. Just call it what it is.
If people choose to self segregate, so be it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish the staff would just do away with all option programs, draw lines that reduce transportation and just go that way. We can't even hire enough bus drivers here! This option BS is a relic of the past.
So you propose further segregation? Cool. Just call it what it is.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish the staff would just do away with all option programs, draw lines that reduce transportation and just go that way. We can't even hire enough bus drivers here! This option BS is a relic of the past.
So you propose further segregation? Cool. Just call it what it is.
Anonymous wrote:I wish the staff would just do away with all option programs, draw lines that reduce transportation and just go that way. We can't even hire enough bus drivers here! This option BS is a relic of the past.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just make a decision, Arlington. Enough with the hand wringing. It’s a county of type a nerds with attitude and you can’t please them all. The option the staff is pushing is perfectly sensible. Just frickin do it.
+A MILLION.
Stop the community feedback. It's all just crying because their kids will get a "less than ideal" situation. This will happen no matter what. JUST MAKE THE MOVES.
Anonymous wrote:If what the PP said is true, Save McKinley needs to distance itself from the McKrazies who obviously only care about themselves and are willing to make sure everyone else suffers because of their own entitlement. However, the queen of screamers was wearing a SaveMcK shirt on tv, so.........
Anonymous wrote:Just make a decision, Arlington. Enough with the hand wringing. It’s a county of type a nerds with attitude and you can’t please them all. The option the staff is pushing is perfectly sensible. Just frickin do it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They’re bringing the public in much later in the process, once the decision is all but made. Gone are the days of six different options for the community to rank and considering the community’s preference in selecting the ultimate recommendation, instead we now get one option that they’re going to go with, one alternative designed to push people to support the intended recommendation, and an explanation for why they chose the option they’ll be recommending.
Granted, I think this is better because the community showed it can’t handle having real input in the process, but it is different.
And thank goodness for that!
In some fairness, though, I really don't think they have a lot of options to seriously consider, let alone put forward. And this week's presentation helped illustrate that when they went through the various scenarios and explained why they didn't move them forward.
This 'process' is BS, seems like yesterday they were doing the Key / ASFS swap, before that the option school was moving to Nottingham and now McKinley is the target. Has the 'data' really changed that much?
Step right up to the APS Ouija Board, just don't disagree with Lisa - she is *always* right.
The fact that they backed away from the Key/ASFS Swap and moving to Nottingham show that they ARE listening and ARE taking new data into account. The fundamental problems have not changed, though. Rosslyn and Courthouse have no where to go to school and there are too many seats in the west with the new Reed building. It's time for APS to finally make a strategic move. I'm sorry that it is inconvenient to you, personally.
What 'data' has really changed in the past year? Only hard data I have seen is enrollment is slowing down and new housing isn't coming online as quickly as the county predicts.
I take it you are speaking for Key on Key? You need to answer the fundamental question of why it's a travesty to move an option program that isn't even attracting Spanish speakers 2.5 miles but it's perfectly ok to send neighborhood kids over 3 miles to Taylor.
What I am saying is that APS is playing a game of musical chairs with the *same* data - and we are running out of chairs. FYI I am not speaking for Key on Key - I am just talking about this process that feels like APS keeps throwing ideas against a wall to see what sticks.
Ok... What is your proposal, then? Do nothing and draw boundaries around current locations? Something else? I just don't see a better option, but maybe you do.
APS has the *experts* - what they need to do is hire decisive men to work there, not the wet noodles they seem to get. The current team of APS administrators act like a bunch of chickens running around with no heads.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I also agree that APS has been very engaged and transparent. Some people confuse 'you don't listen to me' with 'you don't agree with me.'
This 100%. The staff has been very clear about the alternatives they considered and why they weren't chosen and (as someone with no skin in the game) the recommendation seems reasonable. The only objections really come down to "I personally will be inconvenienced so the plan is bad.". Not agreeing with you is not the same as not listening.
I also think the charge that they already knew what they wanted to do before putting it out for wider community input is ridiculous. It's their job to figure this out! Of course they should have a well-informed point of view!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You guys on DCUM restore in me the hope that AEM takes away.
+1
Anonymous wrote:You guys on DCUM restore in me the hope that AEM takes away.