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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Spending $75 million on a new elementary school in the RB-corridor just so an immersion school with dwindling Spanish-speaking enrollment can stay put doesn't sound like the best use of our tax dollars either.

Even if there was a site, which there is not. Dawson’s Terrace is not viable in the 10 year timeframe (or ever). Building up on Key is not viable. Where is this magical new school going to go?

PP here - that's my point. It'd be a futile waste of money just to accommodate a tiny sliver of the school population.

So then why are we accommodating by kicking out 2 other schools?

You’re right, we should just dissolve the immersion program at Key and return it to neighborhood that way.

Then we can dissolve Claremont and relieve overcrowding at Abingdon. Next step, dissolve the other option schools

I can’t tell if this person is trying to scare us in thinking options may go, or actually supports that position?

That said after all this drama, I’m ready to let options go. Though I appreciate ATS accommodating more than most.

I’m not serious... yet. I might become serious if people continue to insist the special option school flowers can’t thrive anywhere but the buildings they are in right now. Sorry, no crying about your county provided bus ride if you’ve chosen to go the option school route.

DP here - I share that sentiment. I'm also sick of how the children will be harmed for life if they don't continue in their parent-chosen option programs, which basically says all the rest of our kids are inferior and receiving inferior educations that don't serve them well. If your kid is so fragile they can't succeed in a neighborhood school with everyone else, then perhaps you should be sending them to ACTUAL private schools.

+1 I'm sure these kids all have friends in the neighborhood, they wouldn't be scarred if they had to return to their neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Neighborhood Key will be integrated because of the neighborhood, Immersion at ATS will be integrated because of the location and program, and ATS at McKinley will be waaay more diverse than neighborhood McKinley. Moving schools creates an additional diverse neighborhood school vs no moves.

Escuela Key is already diverse, ATS is already diverse. Drawing boundaries across Rt 50 could make McKinley diverse. No need to do this "lego block" shuffling and move 3 schools in the process.

No, it won’t. This is how I know you’re a NA parent. Do you even know how far S those boundaries would have to go to get any kids who aren’t UMC? Past Campbell ES, 8 city blocks S of Rt. 50. And, you’d have to bypass the entirety of PUs around Kenmore and N of Campbell, because there isn’t any income diversity there. If it were this simple, staff would’ve done it long ago (look at their representative map, is that a reasonable boundary?!?). Same problems exist as you move E along Rt. 50. The neighborhoods just south of Rt. 50 are some of the higher income PUs in SA. You can’t scoop them up and send them N without negatively affecting the income diversity for SA neighborhood schools. If anything, you’d need to send NA kids just N of 50 to SA in order to move towards more similar demographics, with the exception of the PUs in and around Buckingham.

I agree. Also, did you hear all the crying about how there's no bus service to McKinley so lower income ATS parents wouldn't be able to make it there? Is that somehow NOT a problem if the McKinley neighborhood boundary is drawn way down to scoop up some of the low income western Pike units? GTF out of here. Bunch of hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

I am APS staffer and was at the hearing last night to support some colleagues. I have to say that I am utterly shocked and disappointed in how the Key community reacted when someone dissed the planning staff. They were doing that silent knocking thing and waiving their signs every single time. That community is vile and I hope that the School Board moves them out of spite. I am also ashamed that a Key teacher is leading this charge. She needs to go!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am APS staffer and was at the hearing last night to support some colleagues. I have to say that I am utterly shocked and disappointed in how the Key community reacted when someone dissed the planning staff. They were doing that silent knocking thing and waiving their signs every single time. That community is vile and I hope that the School Board moves them out of spite. I am also ashamed that a Key teacher is leading this charge. She needs to go!

If their goal is to erode general support for options programs in Arlington County... it's working.

[Anonymous]

Does the SB vote take place publicly? Or will there just be an email sent out or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Neighborhood Key will be integrated because of the neighborhood, Immersion at ATS will be integrated because of the location and program, and ATS at McKinley will be waaay more diverse than neighborhood McKinley. Moving schools creates an additional diverse neighborhood school vs no moves.

Escuela Key is already diverse, ATS is already diverse. Drawing boundaries across Rt 50 could make McKinley diverse. No need to do this "lego block" shuffling and move 3 schools in the process.

No, it won’t. This is how I know you’re a NA parent. Do you even know how far S those boundaries would have to go to get any kids who aren’t UMC? Past Campbell ES, 8 city blocks S of Rt. 50. And, you’d have to bypass the entirety of PUs around Kenmore and N of Campbell, because there isn’t any income diversity there. If it were this simple, staff would’ve done it long ago (look at their representative map, is that a reasonable boundary?!?). Same problems exist as you move E along Rt. 50. The neighborhoods just south of Rt. 50 are some of the higher income PUs in SA. You can’t scoop them up and send them N without negatively affecting the income diversity for SA neighborhood schools. If anything, you’d need to send NA kids just N of 50 to SA in order to move towards more similar demographics, with the exception of the PUs in and around Buckingham.

I agree. Also, did you hear all the crying about how there's no bus service to McKinley so lower income ATS parents wouldn't be able to make it there? Is that somehow NOT a problem if the McKinley neighborhood boundary is drawn way down to scoop up some of the low income western Pike units? GTF out of here. Bunch of hypocrites.

Yes. If transportation is the issue, forcing kids with that issue to attend a school there is far more inequitable than giving people a choice. For what it’s worth, I do not think ATS will have any fewer VPI applicants. If they now will have the space to accept more VPI students, this is a great thing. Perhaps the county can look at the Patrick Henry apartments and see if there are any opportunities for their AH partners to redevelop housing for more low income families, allowing them to live closer to the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the SB vote take place publicly? Or will there just be an email sent out or something?

It should be a public vote near the beginning of their regular meeting on Thursday, though I don't think the official agenda has been released yet.

[Anonymous]

Just a guess, but I’d give Key what—five years?—before it’s dissolved as an immersion school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the SB vote take place publicly? Or will there just be an email sent out or something?

It should be a public vote near the beginning of their regular meeting on Thursday, though I don't think the official agenda has been released yet.

Thanks! Will probably just look for an update here, haha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am APS staffer and was at the hearing last night to support some colleagues. I have to say that I am utterly shocked and disappointed in how the Key community reacted when someone dissed the planning staff. They were doing that silent knocking thing and waiving their signs every single time. That community is vile and I hope that the School Board moves them out of spite. I am also ashamed that a Key teacher is leading this charge. She needs to go!

Wait. You’re an APS staffer and just came onto anonymous board to call the Key community “vile”? You hope the school board moves them “out of spite”?Can you clarify? Are you a staffer involved in giving proposals to the school board? I’ve been watching the proposed move issue from the sidelines and I’m ok with the moves happening or not happening, but I’d like to think this kind of bias against any of the impacted schools isn’t playing a role in the decision making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am APS staffer and was at the hearing last night to support some colleagues. I have to say that I am utterly shocked and disappointed in how the Key community reacted when someone dissed the planning staff. They were doing that silent knocking thing and waiving their signs every single time. That community is vile and I hope that the School Board moves them out of spite. I am also ashamed that a Key teacher is leading this charge. She needs to go!

Cintia - we are so glad you have stepped up to the challenge. Keep up the good work - we support Proposal 1 along with most of the PTAs last night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am APS staffer and was at the hearing last night to support some colleagues. I have to say that I am utterly shocked and disappointed in how the Key community reacted when someone dissed the planning staff. They were doing that silent knocking thing and waiving their signs every single time. That community is vile and I hope that the School Board moves them out of spite. I am also ashamed that a Key teacher is leading this charge. She needs to go!

Cintia - we are so glad you have stepped up to the challenge. Keep up the good work - we support Proposal 1 along with most of the PTAs last night.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am APS staffer and was at the hearing last night to support some colleagues. I have to say that I am utterly shocked and disappointed in how the Key community reacted when someone dissed the planning staff. They were doing that silent knocking thing and waiving their signs every single time. That community is vile and I hope that the School Board moves them out of spite. I am also ashamed that a Key teacher is leading this charge. She needs to go!

Cintia - we are so glad you have stepped up to the challenge. Keep up the good work - we support Proposal 1 along with most of the PTAs last night.

I am on team Cintia as well. She is making the hard decisions that need to be made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Neighborhood Key will be integrated because of the neighborhood, Immersion at ATS will be integrated because of the location and program, and ATS at McKinley will be waaay more diverse than neighborhood McKinley. Moving schools creates an additional diverse neighborhood school vs no moves.

Escuela Key is already diverse, ATS is already diverse. Drawing boundaries across Rt 50 could make McKinley diverse. No need to do this "lego block" shuffling and move 3 schools in the process.

No, it won’t. This is how I know you’re a NA parent. Do you even know how far S those boundaries would have to go to get any kids who aren’t UMC? Past Campbell ES, 8 city blocks S of Rt. 50. And, you’d have to bypass the entirety of PUs around Kenmore and N of Campbell, because there isn’t any income diversity there. If it were this simple, staff would’ve done it long ago (look at their representative map, is that a reasonable boundary?!?). Same problems exist as you move E along Rt. 50. The neighborhoods just south of Rt. 50 are some of the higher income PUs in SA. You can’t scoop them up and send them N without negatively affecting the income diversity for SA neighborhood schools. If anything, you’d need to send NA kids just N of 50 to SA in order to move towards more similar demographics, with the exception of the PUs in and around Buckingham.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Neighborhood Key will be integrated because of the neighborhood, Immersion at ATS will be integrated because of the location and program, and ATS at McKinley will be waaay more diverse than neighborhood McKinley. Moving schools creates an additional diverse neighborhood school vs no moves.

Escuela Key is already diverse, ATS is already diverse. Drawing boundaries across Rt 50 could make McKinley diverse. No need to do this "lego block" shuffling and move 3 schools in the process.

No, it won’t. This is how I know you’re a NA parent. Do you even know how far S those boundaries would have to go to get any kids who aren’t UMC? Past Campbell ES, 8 city blocks S of Rt. 50. And, you’d have to bypass the entirety of PUs around Kenmore and N of Campbell, because there isn’t any income diversity there. If it were this simple, staff would’ve done it long ago (look at their representative map, is that a reasonable boundary?!?). Same problems exist as you move E along Rt. 50. The neighborhoods just south of Rt. 50 are some of the higher income PUs in SA. You can’t scoop them up and send them N without negatively affecting the income diversity for SA neighborhood schools. If anything, you’d need to send NA kids just N of 50 to SA in order to move towards more similar demographics, with the exception of the PUs in and around Buckingham.

We need SB members who will take on the challenge and drag NA students into SA schools kicking and screaming. All of the current SB members are closet republicans. Who is running on a truly progressive platform that will implement the equity our families deserve?