Thoughts on McKinley or Discovery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are doing ES boundaries this spring, not this fall. It was in one of the presentations at a SB meeting this summer. You would have to pick through the website, but I think it was one of the meetings in June.

They're doing them this spring, but the changes won't go into effect until 2019-2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are doing ES boundaries this spring, not this fall. It was in one of the presentations at a SB meeting this summer. You would have to pick through the website, but I think it was one of the meetings in June.

They're doing them this spring, but the changes won't go into effect until 2019-2020.

One thing that wasn't clear to me during that meeting, though, is whether it would be all ES in APS, or just south Arlington. North was just done a couple of years ago and will have to be done again in a few years anyway, doing a third one in between just for the sake of a year or two seems pretty foolish, especially since it's likely that the same planning units at the boundaries between schools that were moved around the last time would be up for potentially moving again. Overcrowding sucks, but is having your kid move between schools two or three times in the course of elementary school a good alternative?

[Anonymous]

We're on the Ashlwan side of Dominion Hills. We have a great civic association with fun events for kids like neighborhood day, 4th of July and Halloween parades. You'd be right between Dominion Hills and Madison Manor parks, close to the bike trail. We love it. Lots of families with young kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are doing ES boundaries this spring, not this fall. It was in one of the presentations at a SB meeting this summer. You would have to pick through the website, but I think it was one of the meetings in June.

They're doing them this spring, but the changes won't go into effect until 2019-2020.

One thing that wasn't clear to me during that meeting, though, is whether it would be all ES in APS, or just south Arlington. North was just done a couple of years ago and will have to be done again in a few years anyway, doing a third one in between just for the sake of a year or two seems pretty foolish, especially since it's likely that the same planning units at the boundaries between schools that were moved around the last time would be up for potentially moving again. Overcrowding sucks, but is having your kid move between schools two or three times in the course of elementary school a good alternative?

They are only doing South boundaries--because if they open the entire county up, they might have to deal with the issue of segregation and they aren't going to touch that. That's why they aren't doing them all at the same time. So they don't get more bad press. This way it doesn't look like deliberate segregation. No more changes in North until the new school is built, so that they don't have to tackle the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are doing ES boundaries this spring, not this fall. It was in one of the presentations at a SB meeting this summer. You would have to pick through the website, but I think it was one of the meetings in June.

They're doing them this spring, but the changes won't go into effect until 2019-2020.

One thing that wasn't clear to me during that meeting, though, is whether it would be all ES in APS, or just south Arlington. North was just done a couple of years ago and will have to be done again in a few years anyway, doing a third one in between just for the sake of a year or two seems pretty foolish, especially since it's likely that the same planning units at the boundaries between schools that were moved around the last time would be up for potentially moving again. Overcrowding sucks, but is having your kid move between schools two or three times in the course of elementary school a good alternative?

They are only doing South boundaries--because if they open the entire county up, they might have to deal with the issue of segregation and they aren't going to touch that. That's why they aren't doing them all at the same time. So they don't get more bad press. This way it doesn't look like deliberate segregation. No more changes in North until the new school is built, so that they don't have to tackle the elephant in the room.

That's what I thought. I have no idea what 14:15/15:41 is talking about, but perhaps they have other info they can cite to. We're in Nottingham and I feel like we would have heard about it if the SB was talking about reopening the boundary issue in our part of the county next year, because you know the Nottingham PTA would be all over that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are doing ES boundaries this spring, not this fall. It was in one of the presentations at a SB meeting this summer. You would have to pick through the website, but I think it was one of the meetings in June.

They're doing them this spring, but the changes won't go into effect until 2019-2020.

One thing that wasn't clear to me during that meeting, though, is whether it would be all ES in APS, or just south Arlington. North was just done a couple of years ago and will have to be done again in a few years anyway, doing a third one in between just for the sake of a year or two seems pretty foolish, especially since it's likely that the same planning units at the boundaries between schools that were moved around the last time would be up for potentially moving again. Overcrowding sucks, but is having your kid move between schools two or three times in the course of elementary school a good alternative?

They are only doing South boundaries--because if they open the entire county up, they might have to deal with the issue of segregation and they aren't going to touch that. That's why they aren't doing them all at the same time. So they don't get more bad press. This way it doesn't look like deliberate segregation. No more changes in North until the new school is built, so that they don't have to tackle the elephant in the room.

I don't know where you are getting this from, but it is not true. Watch the video from the June 15 and June 29 meeting. The School Board voted to revise the APS boundary policy to require systemic review of boundaries "at a minimum, every five years"-- before the vote, Barbara K talked about the need to have a process to adjust more frequently to take care of "skewed enrollment" situations. She also noted a need to react more quickly to the annual update. Reed is going to be another choice school anyway, so there is no need to delay the NA boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are doing ES boundaries this spring, not this fall. It was in one of the presentations at a SB meeting this summer. You would have to pick through the website, but I think it was one of the meetings in June.

They're doing them this spring, but the changes won't go into effect until 2019-2020.

One thing that wasn't clear to me during that meeting, though, is whether it would be all ES in APS, or just south Arlington. North was just done a couple of years ago and will have to be done again in a few years anyway, doing a third one in between just for the sake of a year or two seems pretty foolish, especially since it's likely that the same planning units at the boundaries between schools that were moved around the last time would be up for potentially moving again. Overcrowding sucks, but is having your kid move between schools two or three times in the course of elementary school a good alternative?

They are only doing South boundaries--because if they open the entire county up, they might have to deal with the issue of segregation and they aren't going to touch that. That's why they aren't doing them all at the same time. So they don't get more bad press. This way it doesn't look like deliberate segregation. No more changes in North until the new school is built, so that they don't have to tackle the elephant in the room.

I don't know where you are getting this from, but it is not true. Watch the video from the June 15 and June 29 meeting. The School Board voted to revise the APS boundary policy to require systemic review of boundaries "at a minimum, every five years"-- before the vote, Barbara K talked about the need to have a process to adjust more frequently to take care of "skewed enrollment" situations. She also noted a need to react more quickly to the annual update. Reed is going to be another choice school anyway, so there is no need to delay the NA boundary changes.

Did they explicitly say they were revisiting the NA boundaries, or are you reading tea leaves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are doing ES boundaries this spring, not this fall. It was in one of the presentations at a SB meeting this summer. You would have to pick through the website, but I think it was one of the meetings in June.

They're doing them this spring, but the changes won't go into effect until 2019-2020.

One thing that wasn't clear to me during that meeting, though, is whether it would be all ES in APS, or just south Arlington. North was just done a couple of years ago and will have to be done again in a few years anyway, doing a third one in between just for the sake of a year or two seems pretty foolish, especially since it's likely that the same planning units at the boundaries between schools that were moved around the last time would be up for potentially moving again. Overcrowding sucks, but is having your kid move between schools two or three times in the course of elementary school a good alternative?

They are only doing South boundaries--because if they open the entire county up, they might have to deal with the issue of segregation and they aren't going to touch that. That's why they aren't doing them all at the same time. So they don't get more bad press. This way it doesn't look like deliberate segregation. No more changes in North until the new school is built, so that they don't have to tackle the elephant in the room.

That's what I thought. I have no idea what 14:15/15:41 is talking about, but perhaps they have other info they can cite to. We're in Nottingham and I feel like we would have heard about it if the SB was talking about reopening the boundary issue in our part of the county next year, because you know the Nottingham PTA would be all over that.

Well, the former Nottingham PTA leadership is largely responsible for the McKinley situation so maybe they are just keeping their mouths shut for the moment because they realize their kids are moving onto middle school before the next round of ES changes will be implemented-- so they might as well focus on the Williamsburg and Yorktown boundary debate instead which will impact their own kids. It will be a brand new generation of parents fighting the next round of ES changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are doing ES boundaries this spring, not this fall. It was in one of the presentations at a SB meeting this summer. You would have to pick through the website, but I think it was one of the meetings in June.

They're doing them this spring, but the changes won't go into effect until 2019-2020.

One thing that wasn't clear to me during that meeting, though, is whether it would be all ES in APS, or just south Arlington. North was just done a couple of years ago and will have to be done again in a few years anyway, doing a third one in between just for the sake of a year or two seems pretty foolish, especially since it's likely that the same planning units at the boundaries between schools that were moved around the last time would be up for potentially moving again. Overcrowding sucks, but is having your kid move between schools two or three times in the course of elementary school a good alternative?

They are only doing South boundaries--because if they open the entire county up, they might have to deal with the issue of segregation and they aren't going to touch that. That's why they aren't doing them all at the same time. So they don't get more bad press. This way it doesn't look like deliberate segregation. No more changes in North until the new school is built, so that they don't have to tackle the elephant in the room.

That's what I thought. I have no idea what 14:15/15:41 is talking about, but perhaps they have other info they can cite to. We're in Nottingham and I feel like we would have heard about it if the SB was talking about reopening the boundary issue in our part of the county next year, because you know the Nottingham PTA would be all over that.

Well, the former Nottingham PTA leadership is largely responsible for the McKinley situation so maybe they are just keeping their mouths shut for the moment because they realize their kids are moving onto middle school before the next round of ES changes will be implemented-- so they might as well focus on the Williamsburg and Yorktown boundary debate instead which will impact their own kids. It will be a brand new generation of parents fighting the next round of ES changes.

You clearly don't go to Nottingham, because if you did you'd know what an asinine assumption that is about who was responsible for what.

[Anonymous]

22:34- you are right, I don't go to Nottingham. But this part of North Arlington is a small world, especially the PTA, MONA, and civic association circles. Not to mention the fact that the Nottingham PTA's change.org petition is still posted on-line with all your names signed to it... so the Nottingham players from the last boundary change aren't exactly the secret you seem to think they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:22:34- you are right, I don't go to Nottingham. But this part of North Arlington is a small world, especially the PTA, MONA, and civic association circles. Not to mention the fact that the Nottingham PTA's change.org petition is still posted on-line with all your names signed to it... so the Nottingham players from the last boundary change aren't exactly the secret you seem to think they are.

Boom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:22:34- you are right, I don't go to Nottingham. But this part of North Arlington is a small world, especially the PTA, MONA, and civic association circles. Not to mention the fact that the Nottingham PTA's change.org petition is still posted on-line with all your names signed to it... so the Nottingham players from the last boundary change aren't exactly the secret you seem to think they are.

Boom.

here you go-https://www.change.org/p/arlington-county-school-board-and-aps-staff-revise-boundaries-in-a-fair-manner-prevent-continued-overcrowding-at-nottingham

[Anonymous]

07:01 - I love you. I wish I had a copy of the email my friend received urging her to sign to, "force McKnley to take on the burden." Meanwhile, McKinley parents were
realizing that the projections were wrong, emailing Chadwick about it and being told no one cared. The "gentleman" who started the Nottingham petition also knew the numbers were wrong. I find everyone involved in that debacle to be despicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:22:34- you are right, I don't go to Nottingham. But this part of North Arlington is a small world, especially the PTA, MONA, and civic association circles. Not to mention the fact that the Nottingham PTA's change.org petition is still posted on-line with all your names signed to it... so the Nottingham players from the last boundary change aren't exactly the secret you seem to think they are.

Boom.

here you go-https://www.change.org/p/arlington-county-school-board-and-aps-staff-revise-boundaries-in-a-fair-manner-prevent-continued-overcrowding-at-nottingham

I have no idea what you think that proves. Sure, that PTA president is gone, but he wasn't the only one driving that effort, there were a number of PTA volunteers behind it and doing the work, most of whom are still at the school and active in the PTA (including following SB meetings for the PTA). Skimming over the list of signatories, I see a hell of a lot of names of people I know to still be at the school with young kids as well. In other words, a substantial portion of the people behind the effort last time are still there and still focused on these issues, and have not, as you asserted, moved on to Williamsburg and Yorktown.

Enjoy your tea.

[Anonymous]

McKinly folks, which planning units do you think should go elsewhere if they redraw the boundaries?