Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

The board questions definitely feel staged/planted at this point. They come off as recited/rehearsed and inauthentic. It would also explain why they are all generally on the same page and not meaningfully questioning anything that is going on.

Duran hasn't show that he's meaningfully looked into what is possible for K-2. He says it's too hard to bring back all students for 4 days so he's not going to even try.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

The board questions definitely feel staged/planted at this point. They come off as recited/rehearsed and inauthentic. It would also explain why they are all generally on the same page and not meaningfully questioning anything that is going on.

Duran hasn't show that he's meaningfully looked into what is possible for K-2. He says it's too hard to bring back all students for 4 days so he's not going to even try.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

The board questions definitely feel staged/planted at this point. They come off as recited/rehearsed and inauthentic. It would also explain why they are all generally on the same page and not meaningfully questioning anything that is going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

He said it’s possible for some schools but transportation would have to be redone and some kids might have to change teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They shouted over a Latina mom who said her community had not been heard, does not want to go back in person because they're trying to survive, and is being used by others to justify opening.

To be clear, the shouting wasn’t because she was Latina or anything like that, it was because the school board was letting her run over the two minute limit when they held everyone expressing a different view strictly to the two minute limit. I’m not part of APE and I think they are extreme in their views, but it very much came across as the school board selectively enforcing the rules based on the content of the speech, which is extremely problematic.

Why wouldn’t people be upset when the rules are unevenly applied? I think shouting someone down is reprehensible, but I certainly understand the frustration. Using accusations of racism as a cudgel to shut down the opposition may be effective, but the people who fall for it are weak minded.

How many other people did they scream over the very second their time ended?

None. Just the Latina. It's not like she went way over. She was finishing her sentence and the Board chair was about to cut her off and did.

APE was not happy that they got called out for using brown kids as pawns.

The SB never waits until someone finishes their sentences tell them their time is up. The moment your two minutes are up, they interrupt you mid-sentence to thank you for you comments.

If you watch the meeting, you will hear Monique O’Grady cut off a child who was speaking in the middle of a sentence right at the two-minute mark. For he speaker in question here, the crowd did not make noise until she had run ten seconds beyond her time (and they did let her finish the sentence before they called out). It was only once the audience spoke up the Monique OGrady did anything to end the comments.

Maybe MO was listening to the speaker and processing what she was saying on behalf of her community. It was a different voice than the 100s of white privileged parents that have said the same thing over and over. As CDT said, "I hear you! We ALL hear you..... my job is to listen to every voice"

Are you suggesting that Monique O'Grady does not listen to other speakers and just watches the clock until they are done?

I mean, if I was on the School Board, I would have stopped listening long time ago to these parents. And then if they came each time and told me to resign my job, then I would 100% just watch the clock while they were speaking.

I would also auto delete their emails....

Except for pesky things like the constitution.

There is not a single thing in the Constitution about emails. And there is no law that law elected officials have to read emails. As long as there is a back up file for FOIA, School Board Members can delete whatever they want off their laptops.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They shouted over a Latina mom who said her community had not been heard, does not want to go back in person because they're trying to survive, and is being used by others to justify opening.

To be clear, the shouting wasn’t because she was Latina or anything like that, it was because the school board was letting her run over the two minute limit when they held everyone expressing a different view strictly to the two minute limit. I’m not part of APE and I think they are extreme in their views, but it very much came across as the school board selectively enforcing the rules based on the content of the speech, which is extremely problematic.

Why wouldn’t people be upset when the rules are unevenly applied? I think shouting someone down is reprehensible, but I certainly understand the frustration. Using accusations of racism as a cudgel to shut down the opposition may be effective, but the people who fall for it are weak minded.

How many other people did they scream over the very second their time ended?

None. Just the Latina. It's not like she went way over. She was finishing her sentence and the Board chair was about to cut her off and did.

APE was not happy that they got called out for using brown kids as pawns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They shouted over a Latina mom who said her community had not been heard, does not want to go back in person because they're trying to survive, and is being used by others to justify opening.

To be clear, the shouting wasn’t because she was Latina or anything like that, it was because the school board was letting her run over the two minute limit when they held everyone expressing a different view strictly to the two minute limit. I’m not part of APE and I think they are extreme in their views, but it very much came across as the school board selectively enforcing the rules based on the content of the speech, which is extremely problematic.

Why wouldn’t people be upset when the rules are unevenly applied? I think shouting someone down is reprehensible, but I certainly understand the frustration. Using accusations of racism as a cudgel to shut down the opposition may be effective, but the people who fall for it are weak minded.

How many other people did they scream over the very second their time ended?

None. Just the Latina. It's not like she went way over. She was finishing her sentence and the Board chair was about to cut her off and did.

APE was not happy that they got called out for using brown kids as pawns.

The SB never waits until someone finishes their sentences tell them their time is up. The moment your two minutes are up, they interrupt you mid-sentence to thank you for you comments.

If you watch the meeting, you will hear Monique O’Grady cut off a child who was speaking in the middle of a sentence right at the two-minute mark. For he speaker in question here, the crowd did not make noise until she had run ten seconds beyond her time (and they did let her finish the sentence before they called out). It was only once the audience spoke up the Monique OGrady did anything to end the comments.

Maybe MO was listening to the speaker and processing what she was saying on behalf of her community. It was a different voice than the 100s of white privileged parents that have said the same thing over and over. As CDT said, "I hear you! We ALL hear you..... my job is to listen to every voice"

Can we all just calling all parents who want their kids to finally receive a real education "white privileged parents"?? Seriously - are you going to say that black/brown/latino families across the country don't want their kids in school? We moved to Arlington for the schools and are baffled at how poorly all of this is being handled.

No, because that’s what this is. That speaker was telling you that no, her community doesn’t want their kids back in school this year, so stop talking about them like you even know them. And also, this is the definition of privilege: we moved to Arlington for the schools. So, you are angry that you paid so much and aren’t getting your way. Listen to your own words. APS is not going to make decisions about how to operate because you paid a premium to live here “for the schools.”

I found it insulting that the speaker on behalf of latinos thinks we are such a monolith. I want my kids back 5 days. You don't speak for me.

This is the problem. People acting like they speak for everyone. Or championing an entire SES, race, etc.

My Latino hairdresser who has to help his single mother aunt who has two children in APS and works two jobs with shuttling kids to school and back and providing childcare in the gaps is 1000% in favor of more in person days. I think it was flawed of APE to try and initially leverage their movement by using the example of low SES kids. It has now become a flashpoint and generally backfired based on the stats.

I also know a Latino family in our neighborhood who lives in apartments and is in a low SES group (their youngest qualified for Pre-K and they get the FR/L meals). I've asked them directly and they express fears about going in person-- they say there are "chismes" that the kids don't keep their masks on and it is unsafe. But, they also have a family where the mom stayed home full time and the dad worked, even before COVID, so, they have shifted to having their three children home with the mom instead of at school.

Different equations and factors for everyone.

All that said, why not employ virtual and add in person days? How does this not theoretically meet all of the needs and wants of the various APS populations at this time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

I agree with this.

-APE hater

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They shouted over a Latina mom who said her community had not been heard, does not want to go back in person because they're trying to survive, and is being used by others to justify opening.

To be clear, the shouting wasn’t because she was Latina or anything like that, it was because the school board was letting her run over the two minute limit when they held everyone expressing a different view strictly to the two minute limit. I’m not part of APE and I think they are extreme in their views, but it very much came across as the school board selectively enforcing the rules based on the content of the speech, which is extremely problematic.

Why wouldn’t people be upset when the rules are unevenly applied? I think shouting someone down is reprehensible, but I certainly understand the frustration. Using accusations of racism as a cudgel to shut down the opposition may be effective, but the people who fall for it are weak minded.

How many other people did they scream over the very second their time ended?

None. Just the Latina. It's not like she went way over. She was finishing her sentence and the Board chair was about to cut her off and did.

APE was not happy that they got called out for using brown kids as pawns.

The SB never waits until someone finishes their sentences tell them their time is up. The moment your two minutes are up, they interrupt you mid-sentence to thank you for you comments.

If you watch the meeting, you will hear Monique O’Grady cut off a child who was speaking in the middle of a sentence right at the two-minute mark. For he speaker in question here, the crowd did not make noise until she had run ten seconds beyond her time (and they did let her finish the sentence before they called out). It was only once the audience spoke up the Monique OGrady did anything to end the comments.

Maybe MO was listening to the speaker and processing what she was saying on behalf of her community. It was a different voice than the 100s of white privileged parents that have said the same thing over and over. As CDT said, "I hear you! We ALL hear you..... my job is to listen to every voice"

Are you suggesting that Monique O'Grady does not listen to other speakers and just watches the clock until they are done?

I mean, if I was on the School Board, I would have stopped listening long time ago to these parents. And then if they came each time and told me to resign my job, then I would 100% just watch the clock while they were speaking.

I would also auto delete their emails....

Except for pesky things like the constitution.

There is not a single thing in the Constitution about emails. And there is no law that law elected officials have to read emails. As long as there is a back up file for FOIA, School Board Members can delete whatever they want off their laptops.