APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ashlawn parent living in the "tail" here - I'm dreading the uncertainty of not knowing where my kid will be going to school, but kind of ready to rip off the bandaid.

Side note, think this thread will get to 100 page by the time the school board actually votes?

Not unless some new twist invigorates it.

Like the public SB meeting on moves this Thursday?

That could do it.

I'm going to K info night tonight and will report back if there's anything said about it in the non-streamed portion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ashlawn parent living in the "tail" here - I'm dreading the uncertainty of not knowing where my kid will be going to school, but kind of ready to rip off the bandaid.

Side note, think this thread will get to 100 page by the time the school board actually votes?

Not unless some new twist invigorates it.

Like the public SB meeting on moves this Thursday?

That could do it.

I'm going to K info night tonight and will report back if there's anything said about it in the non-streamed portion.

I too am in a tail. No idea where my kids are going to be zoned. It's not the current school; of that, I am sure, move or no move.

[Anonymous]

It is unusual to see active push in support of staff from schools not threatened to be moved. I would say SB will see letters and speakers from the collective PTAs as a sign they can support staff (for once!) and vote yes on the moves. I have been watching this stuff for 10 years. I think the moves are a go. We will know soon!

[Anonymous]

I would be impacted by the rezoning and really do not care either way. Ashlawn is a nice school but way, way over crowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is unusual to see active push in support of staff from schools not threatened to be moved. I would say SB will see letters and speakers from the collective PTAs as a sign they can support staff (for once!) and vote yes on the moves. I have been watching this stuff for 10 years. I think the moves are a go. We will know soon!

This is a really important point. Having input from the whole community rather than those most directly impacted is a huge deal. Of course, in the past, SB could simply dismiss such input because it's coming from communities that weren't being significantly impacted. This time, though, everyone will be impacted significantly regardless of the decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be impacted by the rezoning and really do not care either way. Ashlawn is a nice school but way, way over crowded.

All schools are overcrowded - this is Arlington. Well, not Drew because we can't have both poor and crowded and well not Fleet because we can't have new and crowded. Will be interesting how they fix the SA boundary s$&*$show from the last process. If folks the moves process is a mess, just wait until a county-wide boundary process starts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is unusual to see active push in support of staff from schools not threatened to be moved. I would say SB will see letters and speakers from the collective PTAs as a sign they can support staff (for once!) and vote yes on the moves. I have been watching this stuff for 10 years. I think the moves are a go. We will know soon!

This is a really important point. Having input from the whole community rather than those most directly impacted is a huge deal. Of course, in the past, SB could simply dismiss such input because it's coming from communities that weren't being significantly impacted. This time, though, everyone will be impacted significantly regardless of the decision.

You miss the point. These people are most directly impacted IF SCHOOLS DO NOT MOVE. These are the very people dealing with ridiculously crowded schools who can see what systematic changes have to occur to balance enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Moves are happening. All over but the crying. And then we will turn to boundaries. At least it will be not 20+ school free for all you would get under the “no move” ridiculousness. It’ll be down to less than 10. And only a handful of obvious trouble spots.

[Anonymous]

Is it really that unusual or is it just another NIMBY move?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is unusual to see active push in support of staff from schools not threatened to be moved. I would say SB will see letters and speakers from the collective PTAs as a sign they can support staff (for once!) and vote yes on the moves. I have been watching this stuff for 10 years. I think the moves are a go. We will know soon!

This is a really important point. Having input from the whole community rather than those most directly impacted is a huge deal. Of course, in the past, SB could simply dismiss such input because it's coming from communities that weren't being significantly impacted. This time, though, everyone will be impacted significantly regardless of the decision.

You miss the point. These people are most directly impacted IF SCHOOLS DO NOT MOVE. These are the very people dealing with ridiculously crowded schools who can see what systematic changes have to occur to balance enrollment.

The problem is those of use in neighborhood schools don’t really know what is happening.


That makes it harder for me to advocate one way or the other because for all I know fighting for No Move means my kid gets to stay at their current school and fighting for the move means my kid will have to move.

I’m in support of the move but I’m hesitant to publicly advocate for it because I don’t want to find out further down the line that my advocacy is the reason something else unforeseen happpens come fall.

For example in the last boundary change we were limited on certain moves that could be made because of a variety of smaller factors. I don’t want to see for example we have to create an additional school with a 60% FRL rate because “it’s the only way”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is unusual to see active push in support of staff from schools not threatened to be moved. I would say SB will see letters and speakers from the collective PTAs as a sign they can support staff (for once!) and vote yes on the moves. I have been watching this stuff for 10 years. I think the moves are a go. We will know soon!

This is a really important point. Having input from the whole community rather than those most directly impacted is a huge deal. Of course, in the past, SB could simply dismiss such input because it's coming from communities that weren't being significantly impacted. This time, though, everyone will be impacted significantly regardless of the decision.

You miss the point. These people are most directly impacted IF SCHOOLS DO NOT MOVE. These are the very people dealing with ridiculously crowded schools who can see what systematic changes have to occur to balance enrollment.

The problem is those of use in neighborhood schools don’t really know what is happening.


That makes it harder for me to advocate one way or the other because for all I know fighting for No Move means my kid gets to stay at their current school and fighting for the move means my kid will have to move.

I’m in support of the move but I’m hesitant to publicly advocate for it because I don’t want to find out further down the line that my advocacy is the reason something else unforeseen happpens come fall.

For example in the last boundary change we were limited on certain moves that could be made because of a variety of smaller factors. I don’t want to see for example we have to create an additional school with a 60% FRL rate because “it’s the only way”

And I especially don’t want to hear “I told you so” from that annoying Key crowd!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be impacted by the rezoning and really do not care either way. Ashlawn is a nice school but way, way over crowded.

All schools are overcrowded - this is Arlington. Well, not Drew because we can't have both poor and crowded and well not Fleet because we can't have new and crowded. Will be interesting how they fix the SA boundary s$&*$show from the last process. If folks the moves process is a mess, just wait until a county-wide boundary process starts.

ATS does not have trailers.
Nor spanish immersion schools. They are under attended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be impacted by the rezoning and really do not care either way. Ashlawn is a nice school but way, way over crowded.

All schools are overcrowded - this is Arlington. Well, not Drew because we can't have both poor and crowded and well not Fleet because we can't have new and crowded. Will be interesting how they fix the SA boundary s$&*$show from the last process. If folks the moves process is a mess, just wait until a county-wide boundary process starts.

ATS does not have trailers.
Nor spanish immersion schools. They are under attended.

No, they’re not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be impacted by the rezoning and really do not care either way. Ashlawn is a nice school but way, way over crowded.

All schools are overcrowded - this is Arlington. Well, not Drew because we can't have both poor and crowded and well not Fleet because we can't have new and crowded. Will be interesting how they fix the SA boundary s$&*$show from the last process. If folks the moves process is a mess, just wait until a county-wide boundary process starts.

ATS does not have trailers.
Nor spanish immersion schools. They are under attended.

All three of those schools have trailers. Do you even live in Arlington?

[Anonymous]

McKinley PTA is now shamelessly sending out personalized emails to other PTAs to lobby for a no vote. The emails have very official-looking stats for each school to compare the impact of the APS scenarios against their 3 alternative scenarios. I have news - nice formatting can’t hide flawed analysis. But they are not lobbying...