APS - Elementary School Boundaries

[Anonymous]

So finally done. We can enjoy temporary peace for the next two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think TT is calling out the hypocrisy of the Keep key on Key folks crying crocodile tears over the units South of LEe HIghway going to Taylor.

I don’t always agree with her, but she’s head and shoulders above all the vocal Key “advocates” in terms of integrity. Good for her for calling out the hypocrites.

+1. I wish she was sticking around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think TT is calling out the hypocrisy of the Keep key on Key folks crying crocodile tears over the units South of LEe HIghway going to Taylor.

I don’t always agree with her, but she’s head and shoulders above all the vocal Key “advocates” in terms of integrity. Good for her for calling out the hypocrites.

+1. I wish she was sticking around.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Given the inputs I heard from yesterday's hearing, I have the impression that SB will approve the current recommended map with a slight modification of grandfathering policy. I was surprised that none of the south of Wilson Blvd. spoke up at yesterday's meeting to have their PU included within the Key zone. Some of them are literally just 2 streets away, like 5 mins walking distance.

I thought there was at least one from one of those PU's who complained about the current proposal.

Yeah, there was at least one who sounded hella pissed and maybe another one or two who were calmer. I totally understand why she's angry. Unfortunately there is no way to do the zone around Key that doesn't screw someone over, but they really are getting hosed.

They raised a HUGE fuss during the middle school boundary at how being zoned for TJ was cruel for their children who had to leave friends (even though they had ALWAYS been zoned for TJ before, just ASFS had split resort of kids between SW and WB). Assume staff didn’t want water works taking them from beloved ASFS.

She’s been all over the map about what she wants and why— ultimately always wanted to be at Key but as ASFS (huge proponent of the Swap). Really pushed the upper/lower idea to keep all of ASFS together. She absolutely has a point that it’s ridiculous to start ASFS off as overcapacity while Key (and Taylor) are under-capacity but I think APS is going to do the ultimate screw over and send them to Long Branch in a few years. Have to wonder if it’s not payback for how pushy they were during the middle school boundary process (and this process).

The upper/lower was coming from Lyon Village, it was because no one wants to intentionally create a title 1 school within a half mile of a school with close to no f/rl kids at it. That’s not equity, especially since you are not even honoring the walk zone of said title 1 school. In fact you are bussing the rich kids out of the title 1 school (and not even by choice— it’s how they drew the boundary).
The woman you’re talking about above (“she”) won’t be affected by the next boundary process, her youngest is in fourth grade. The woman who cried in middle schools a few years ago has her youngest in sixth grade this year, she won’t be affected by any rezoning unless they don’t grandfather eighth graders.
I’m not sure why you think anyone in courthouse-Clarendon was especially pushy this go around— I read exactly three emails in what is published on engage. The civic association letter just calls out that they are violating stability by moving those planning units twice (since no one else from ASFS is staying there, they are being really hypocritical by not calling it a move).

Wrong—for “she”, her youngest is in K

Nope, the PP was correct— youngest is in 4th.

[Anonymous]

I thought “she” was bike lady, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought “she” was bike lady, no?

No. Different conversation. The convo right above you is about a person who lives in the Courthouse/Clarendon area staying at ASFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone PLEASE ask these "pause the boundary process" people how they can possibly be supporting any proposal that leaves a brand new school empty next year while other schools are overcrowded? People flip out when one school is at 83% and another is at 107%. These people are proposing we leave a brand new shiny elementary school at 0%. They're actually proposing that. And no, we do not need random extra space for DL, or whatever they're suggesting. We need permanent seats for kids.

Please someone call them on it. I'm not on AEM, or I would do it myself.

Except that with the pandemic, the schools are not overcrowded like they were before. I think it would have been better to do a comprehensive process that factored both proximity and demographics. By freezing the current process and then lining up a comprehensive plan for 2022-23, schools like Abingdon and Claremont could be helped out a full year earlier. I understand why the Board felt compelled to "use" Reed this fall, but I think it was a mistake.

In any event, its now decided. I hope it doesn't turn out as poorly as I'm afraid it will.

[Anonymous]

They have a plan to help abingdon for 2021-22.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They have a plan to help abingdon for 2021-22.

I didn't watch the meeting...did they say what the plan was for Abingdon?

[Anonymous]

So did they vote to approve the Superintendent's recommendation for boundaries and the 21-22 calendar then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So did they vote to approve the Superintendent's recommendation for boundaries and the 21-22 calendar then?

Yes on the boundaries - 4 to 1 with Goldstein as the no. I think yes on the calendar but I didn't watch that part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So did they vote to approve the Superintendent's recommendation for boundaries and the 21-22 calendar then?

Yes on the boundaries - 4 to 1 with Goldstein as the no. I think yes on the calendar but I didn't watch that part.

Thanks. I looked it up on the website and was surprised to see that they've already updated the agenda to include the voting record! Calendar was approved 5-0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone PLEASE ask these "pause the boundary process" people how they can possibly be supporting any proposal that leaves a brand new school empty next year while other schools are overcrowded? People flip out when one school is at 83% and another is at 107%. These people are proposing we leave a brand new shiny elementary school at 0%. They're actually proposing that. And no, we do not need random extra space for DL, or whatever they're suggesting. We need permanent seats for kids.

Please someone call them on it. I'm not on AEM, or I would do it myself.

I’m in favor of moving McKinley to Reed and the domino option school moves, full stop. Grandfathering in 4th and 5th graders or taking planning units off the table because they were moved 1-2 years earlier will lead to partial solutions that never work towards a long term vision - because APS has no long term vision. Let’s live with the option schools move for 1-2 years as that supposedly buys a little time for Rosslyn. Then we can do a real boundary process for the whole county where every planning unit is in play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone PLEASE ask these "pause the boundary process" people how they can possibly be supporting any proposal that leaves a brand new school empty next year while other schools are overcrowded? People flip out when one school is at 83% and another is at 107%. These people are proposing we leave a brand new shiny elementary school at 0%. They're actually proposing that. And no, we do not need random extra space for DL, or whatever they're suggesting. We need permanent seats for kids.

Please someone call them on it. I'm not on AEM, or I would do it myself.

I’m in favor of moving McKinley to Reed and the domino option school moves, full stop. Grandfathering in 4th and 5th graders or taking planning units off the table because they were moved 1-2 years earlier will lead to partial solutions that never work towards a long term vision - because APS has no long term vision. Let’s live with the option schools move for 1-2 years as that supposedly buys a little time for Rosslyn. Then we can do a real boundary process for the whole county where every planning unit is in play.

Ding ding ding. APS has no long term vision -- that is obvious. Stengel is the worst part of it -- look at what she did with ASFS -- the enrollments/transfers change she forced through, then the swap which she then cancelled because it "didn't make sense", then forcing the boundary change (that freezes the entire eastern side of the county for any sort of comprehensive county wide change) during a pandemic. I think she just forces change so she has to correct it in the future and perpetuates her job. Such incompetence.

[Anonymous]

Now that the moves are finalized, has the school board given a timeline for when they will revise the immersion boundaries? Is there a risk that rising 4th or 5th graders are Claremont could be rezoned to Key at the ATS building?