Site Talk: A Message to Our Users | Log in to post and mark posts as watched.
refresh »[-]I feel that inside schools has gone down hill recently. gave $$ to them in the past, but now feel the blogs and posts are sort of rumor mills and meant to incite people. often info is inaccurate and inflammatory to put pressure on doe, but seems to cause more trouble than good. I am surprised y the turn they have taken. seems like they hired a few UBers with strong opinions to give them something to do now that their kids are in school. wholly unreliable
30 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]-
The write-ups are the most imporatant thing yet they seem to have abandoned them for blogging and other stuff.
[ Reply | Options ]FWIW, they just updated the write-up of DC's school. Think they did it b/c a new principal started in the fall. They visited the school in June and did a nice job describing it.
[ Reply | Options ]they should stick to the write ups. seemed like a nice resource before. now they sound like annoying public school sahms stirring up trouble a la UB. think the doe should not return their phone calls or give them any info. they abuse their position and are becoming gossips who behave like whistle blowers
[ Reply | Options ]-
np: the problem is that the info is often incorrect and gets people riled up and upset over nothing. the amount of time and energy wasted on parsing through the number of 98s vs 99s at a given citywide and the like. who the f$ck cares? I think this stuff just inflames without being useful. If there were really some kind of corruption going on, then by all means blow the whistle. otherwise pipe down and stop making people crazy...as if they aren't crazy enough already!
[ Reply | Options ]-
-
wow, i work there (though i don't blog or do any of the editorial stuff). I will share this discussion with the staff tomorrow, and i hope more people will chime in.
[ Reply | Options ]good. the blogs are annoying, and the site used to seem more respectable. now seems they are trying to mimic UB and create a draw.
[ Reply | Options ]I am the only one there who spends any time on UB (old habit which pre-dates my employment there). Can you be specific about your concerns? examples?
[ Reply | Options ]it is the tone of the blogs. they make it sound like they have the juicy inside view. often its no more than what we get from UB, yet they take an official stance. almost as if they are an arm of the doe. it seems unprofessional. hard to name specific issues. just the overall approach/tone coupled with the "official business" element. I think they should spend more time and $$ on updating the site regarding school reviews, and get out of the blog business.
[ Reply | Options ]have you always felt this way since the blog was launched (i think about a year ago) or just recently? i can tell you that everyone there just works really hard to try to help parents and make the schools better for all kids, and it is really hard to keep on top of more than 1,500 schools.
[ Reply | Options ]I really cannot answer that since I only recently found out about the blog on UB, and went there when UB changed hoping to get some info on G&T placements. I have since gone back a few times, but have not liked it. I am a np btw. not sure about what others think about changes, etc.
[ Reply | Options ]
np: even naming the bloggers (Ask Judy? blech)is a big turnoff. who the hell is judy anyway?
[ Reply | Options ]
np. agree, but i totally get where they're coming from. they need to drive traffic. gotta have a blog!
[ Reply | Options ]-
yes, not surprising given how new it is, but i'm sure the goal is to keep building it. the point is you sort of have to have a blog these days. btdt at corporate sites.
[ Reply | Options ]well, they need to tone it down a bit and be more responsible. the negative rabble rousing makes them lose credibility IMO.
[ Reply | Options ]it would be good to have more people blogging there more regularly. I liked the kid who gave his 1st hand account of applying out of middle school to high school. It was so interesting to hear from an actual kid going through the process. Also the mom who blogged about how different it was going thru that same process with her 2nd DC than it was with the 1st.
[ Reply | Options ]
-
I forgot her name but the main blogger who was in charge of most postings did a much better job. I really don't like the new style. I do appreciate, though, that you guys really try to get some time with DOE officials to get answers (like the G&T things recently). The reviews are good but many need to be updated.
[ Reply | Options ]-
-
[-]FWIW, I heard today that a dc at our preK with below 95 OLSAT was just offered a spot at TAG.
84 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]that's so wrong. so much for the utterly fair, utterly transparent, new g&t admissions policy.
[ Reply | Options ]np: Oh please. Would you prefer them to close the program down. They should have known they will not fill it up with 97+ kids.
[ Reply | Options ]i would prefer them to go down a wait list ranked by score and not let in some random dc whose parents could have bribed their way in for all we know. again, FAIRNESS and TRANSPARENCY are what the doe promised.
[ Reply | Options ]Obviously they went down the list of kids that scored 97+ and listed TAG already, and still don't have enough kids.
[ Reply | Options ]it seems like they should then go to those scoring 97 and above who didn't list tag and ask if they are sure they don't want tag before going to those who scored below the cutoff.
[ Reply | Options ]Girls, if you wanted your dc to go to a citywide so badly, you should have listed NEST and TAG too. It was an option.
[ Reply | Options ]eh. there might have been someone who wanted, say, lower lab over tag so didn't rank tag. but then they got, say, ps11 with a 97 over lower lab. maybe if they were offered tag now they would take it. i'm not a fan of giving people a second chance, but i'm also not a fan of giving people who didn't even qualify a shot at a citywide unless the doe cares to officially explain their rationale and their new policy.
[ Reply | Options ]
why is this obvious? unless they announce a policy on how they plan to deal with undersubscribed g&t's, it's all speculation. and all open to corruption.
[ Reply | Options ]corruption? please! try the idea that the doe is trying to be flexible and creative with a new process. they must respond to the data/circumstances that arise. No one is trying to steal from you. Calm down, and consider some strong meds.
[ Reply | Options ]no one's stealing from me. dc is already in at a g&t. but the doe is just pathetic. promising one thing and doing another. big liars is what they are.
[ Reply | Options ]see that is a very childish response. they have thousands of kids to manage and are trying to evolve the system to be the most fair while preserving good programs. they decide how to handle unforseen circumstances as they arise because that is what any smart reasonable entity would do. No one is lying or stealing or breaking promises. you are way to concrete and inflexible for an adult.
[ Reply | Options ]i'm sorry, but evolving as you go equals unfair and open to corruption. there's no unforeseen circumstance here. everyone predicted months ago that tag would never be filled and they knew this would be the case. they should have announced what their policy would be should seats go unfilled. they shouldn't be secretly calling up families, violating their own mandates. i'm sorry we disagree. that's no reason to call me a child.
[ Reply | Options ]they are under no obligation to announce every single decision a long the way. to say corruption is afoot with no evidence is wildly paranoid. no organization can run effectively by passing every decision it makes to the constituency. sometimes they just need to work with the circumstances. then if they feel some things worked better than others, they can announce the things they will keep next year.
[ Reply | Options ]i never said there was corruption. i said by quietly breaking their own rules they are now OPEN to corruption. and yes, they are under an obligation as an agency supported by taxpayer dollars to make public their decisions. your argument is ludicrous. they keep things secret until they feel they are working out? puh. leeze.
[ Reply | Options ]I think you are being extreme. we are talking about a few kids in a system with 1 million. If they decide to place a few kids now that all is said and done based on current circumstances, they do not need to announce every placement. I agree that if they decide to incorporate such decisions into overall policy going forward, then they should announce as much in the fall. otherwise, making a federal case over every dc placed (likely for the greaqter good such as saving tag) is ridiculous. no govt agency announces every decision on that level. only if it becomes policy is it relevant
[ Reply | Options ]i never said make a federal case out of every dc placed. i said make an announcement if you suddenly have a new policy on g&t placement. and that means when you decide to place one child who doesn't meet the official criteria. letting the government decide when or when something is policy or not is ridiculous. i guess you voted for george bush.
[ Reply | Options ]no, I did not vote for Bush. But i work in the real world and understand the realities of making things work irl. If the doe felt it was their best decision to chnge one class at tag to district wide criteria to keep the program going for the greater good, so be it. perhaps with that new info, they will announce this as policy for the next season. I am fine with that and do not feel angry or cheated or lied to as many including you do here.
[ Reply | Options ]The DOE changed a system that worked fine for many schools in the name of transparency. They made a huge deal about this. They have deprived principals of the power to determine the character of their schools in honor of the principle of transparency, so it's the height of hypocrisy to violate a principle they said was sacrosanct. When you ask the doe for an accommodation, they'll tell you No, there is some principle that can't be violated.
[ Reply | Options ]I think if the doe did was is being rumored here, it was for the greater good. I also think that THEY are the officials in the position to make decisions for the greater good. I think they most certainly can make minor decisions without informing the entire city each time. no govt agency has to do what you suggest, even in the good ole USA. first you accuse me of being a republican bush supporter, now communist? you sound like a nut, and typical of the UB public school moms frequenting the board these days.
[ Reply | Options ]transparency does not mean that you report every minor decision in a press conference. admit that you are just pissed that the decision making power was centralized. making this big case about transparency and the philosophy of violating some higher principle makes me want to lmao. this is just dramatic bs, and you know it. know one could possibly take you seriously
[ Reply | Options ]
Are you saying this only about TAG? Why, if so, are you saying they should have known? Do you have stats on how families ranked their choices or do you just assume Anderson is the only Citywide w/qualified applicants galore? Anderson pooled only 99s except the sibs and was filled Day1. Nest did the same and found themselves w/seats. Who ever said the DoE ran a fair, transparent policy for Citywides? At no time did all scores at 97 and above get put in the same race.
[ Reply | Options ]
TAG has a citywide program and a district program housed in the school, so only the citywide program would require 97+
[ Reply | Options ]I despise people like you running to UB to make these announcements. Like you are imparting some important knowledge or something. Its gossip, meant to inflame and potentially outing a dc that people might recognize. you are really ill.
[ Reply | Options ]Not OP, but you are really out of line. There is nothing at all about her post that has specific identifying information. I am not OP, but I also know of a dc with exact same situation, so it's nothing "unique." Because the DOE doesn't communicate well, boards like this serve a useful purpose in sharing information that the DOE is not making public.
[ Reply | Options ]np: If I were the parent of one of the couple of kids in this situation, I would not be happy to see my info posted here, and really why is this at all necessary? people do not benefit from this rumor mongering.
[ Reply | Options ]It's not rumor mongering. This is actually happening with apparently several families. Is any of UB "necessary"?
[ Reply | Options ]tough titties. you talked your way into a program you didn't deserve to be in and now you're going to put up with a little gossip. boo. hoo.
[ Reply | Options ]-
lol! don't forget crazy. would not have considered public for dc, much less TAG.
[ Reply | Options ]-
the kids are fine. its the crazy paranoid moms who are fighting for the crumbs that would scare me. My bet is that most of them are white.
[ Reply | Options ]
-
-
-
naw. doesn't matter. she just wants to stir up that feeling that someone got something more than someone else just one more time. seems some people just feed on this stuff. same mentality on insideschools these days as is being discussed below.
[ Reply | Options ]Public school moms are famous for this. always looking for someone who got a little more, a few more crumbs, some inequity or appearance of unfairness. hoping to use it to squeeze a few more drops from the system. I agree. Its very unattractive.
[ Reply | Options ]^^^big reason we decided to go private. wasn't the DOE that turned us off. more the political bs the doe has to deal with given all the nuts out there in the system...many of which seem to be here on UB.
[ Reply | Options ]-
np: private school moms tend to be compliant and believe in the system. public school moms feel cheated by the system, and are thus looking for any shred of evidence to support their feelings.
[ Reply | Options ]compliant? interesting. i read that horace mann article in ny mag, and the moms of those little monsters smearing their teachers on facebook could not have been further from compliant when it came to punishing their little darlings, or even suggesting they were out of line. it seems they are just as willing to tear the face of anyone who dares deny their little snookems anything as public school moms are. if not more so.
[ Reply | Options ]-
-
Sigh. Yes, I'm sure that that was the big reason you decided to go private. However, if it really were the big reason, then you are truly stupid.
[ Reply | Options ]
-
It's not just that public school NYC moms are always resentful if someone else gets a crumb more