APS elementary planning initiative called off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

But they aren't doing this. They are showing us what compromises we'd have to make if we went down that road. And nobody likes the compromises. This is all illustrative. Are they really going to not repair hvac's and roofs for four years? And move HS students into an ES and ES onto a HS campus? No, they are not. They are showing us how this is not a real option.

And I do not believe Staff has some sort of hidden agenda. If anything, they took community feedback and that's how Nottingham wound up as the option school (it has to be one of you, and you didn't show up to say "not it.")

That's not how Nottingham ended up on the short list of potential option sites. It ended up there because the staff knew they should move a school to NW and Nottingham was a prime choice to make their job of drawing boundaries easier. Once they came to that conclusion, they went back and tried to create the data to justify it. They have already basically acknowledged this in small-group meetings.

That sounds reasonable to me, and like it's part of the data they were assessing and taking feedback on. Better boundaries mean increasing walkers to neighborhood schools, and shortening bus rides. That's efficiency and proximity. And if it's because they've overbuilt in one small area, then it's also a big plus for equity and making capacity more evenly spread out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

But they aren't doing this. They are showing us what compromises we'd have to make if we went down that road. And nobody likes the compromises. This is all illustrative. Are they really going to not repair hvac's and roofs for four years? And move HS students into an ES and ES onto a HS campus? No, they are not. They are showing us how this is not a real option.

And I do not believe Staff has some sort of hidden agenda. If anything, they took community feedback and that's how Nottingham wound up as the option school (it has to be one of you, and you didn't show up to say "not it.")

That's not how Nottingham ended up on the short list of potential option sites. It ended up there because the staff knew they should move a school to NW and Nottingham was a prime choice to make their job of drawing boundaries easier. Once they came to that conclusion, they went back and tried to create the data to justify it. They have already basically acknowledged this in small-group meetings.

That sounds reasonable to me, and like it's part of the data they were assessing and taking feedback on. Better boundaries mean increasing walkers to neighborhood schools, and shortening bus rides. That's efficiency and proximity. And if it's because they've overbuilt in one small area, then it's also a big plus for equity and making capacity more evenly spread out.

On efficiency, Nottingham would have been a good choice if the data in fact showed it would result in fewer/shorter bus rides. But when you crunch the numbers, you actually end up needing more buses if you make Nottingham an option school.

I have no idea what argument you're trying to make on proximity and how it justifies making a school that's 82% walkers an option site and putting over 300 kids who could walk to school onto buses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

Exactly.

And yet, when the staff learned of their error (from monitoring this forum) they yanked it from the server. That is because appearances matter. The spreadsheet was a factor. Not they only one, but it mattered.

[Anonymous]

Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

None of these schools are small.

[Anonymous]

The good one has a slide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

+1,000. I'm no fan of John Chadwick, but the rest of the staff are good and hard-working people who care about the students in our community. Of course they have their own thoughts on what might work best, and it's their job to play with all the possible scenarios. It's no secret that Tara Nattress wants more IB at the elementary level. Two or three years ago they were exploring the idea of setting up mirror programs on an East-West basis for immersion, IB, Montessori to give even more kids access to option schools. Personally I think we don't have the space for option schools any more, but it doesn't surprise me to see that there's discussion of replacing ATS with IB since ATS really is so random.

id be a little more confident in natrass's motives has she not chosen discovery as her home school when she moved here. It's all the proof I need that "all schools are good schools" is just a talking point that not even the superintendent of instruction believes or walks.

BTW, Eliminating option schools will make south Arlington less crowded and north arlingto more crowded. The mc in SA will move to NA or just leave the county altogether. Any newcomers will go to NA.

What are you talking about "eliminating option schools?" If I understood the Working Group's recommendations correctly, APS will be increasing choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

None of these schools are small.

There is a difference upwards of 150 students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

+1,000. I'm no fan of John Chadwick, but the rest of the staff are good and hard-working people who care about the students in our community. Of course they have their own thoughts on what might work best, and it's their job to play with all the possible scenarios. It's no secret that Tara Nattress wants more IB at the elementary level. Two or three years ago they were exploring the idea of setting up mirror programs on an East-West basis for immersion, IB, Montessori to give even more kids access to option schools. Personally I think we don't have the space for option schools any more, but it doesn't surprise me to see that there's discussion of replacing ATS with IB since ATS really is so random.

id be a little more confident in natrass's motives has she not chosen discovery as her home school when she moved here. It's all the proof I need that "all schools are good schools" is just a talking point that not even the superintendent of instruction believes or walks.

BTW, Eliminating option schools will make south Arlington less crowded and north arlingto more crowded. The mc in SA will move to NA or just leave the county altogether. Any newcomers will go to NA.

What are you talking about "eliminating option schools?" If I understood the Working Group's recommendations correctly, APS will be increasing choices.

It's a constant suggestion in these threads, as if they contribute to overcrowding.

Also, as the school population grows, option schools have stayed static. if APS wants to increase options, they need to open more option schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

+1,000. I'm no fan of John Chadwick, but the rest of the staff are good and hard-working people who care about the students in our community. Of course they have their own thoughts on what might work best, and it's their job to play with all the possible scenarios. It's no secret that Tara Nattress wants more IB at the elementary level. Two or three years ago they were exploring the idea of setting up mirror programs on an East-West basis for immersion, IB, Montessori to give even more kids access to option schools. Personally I think we don't have the space for option schools any more, but it doesn't surprise me to see that there's discussion of replacing ATS with IB since ATS really is so random.

id be a little more confident in natrass's motives has she not chosen discovery as her home school when she moved here. It's all the proof I need that "all schools are good schools" is just a talking point that not even the superintendent of instruction believes or walks.

BTW, Eliminating option schools will make south Arlington less crowded and north arlingto more crowded. The mc in SA will move to NA or just leave the county altogether. Any newcomers will go to NA.

What are you talking about "eliminating option schools?" If I understood the Working Group's recommendations correctly, APS will be increasing choices.

It's a constant suggestion in these threads, as if they contribute to overcrowding.

Also, as the school population grows, option schools have stayed static. if APS wants to increase options, they need to open more option schools.

It sounds like that is the long-term plan. But they are probably also going to move them around. For instance, having Spanish immersion schools at Key and Claremont, in neighborhoods that are no longer heavily Latino, may not make a lot of sense. Especially when they're having trouble maintaining a 50/50 balance of Soanish/English speakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

+1,000. I'm no fan of John Chadwick, but the rest of the staff are good and hard-working people who care about the students in our community. Of course they have their own thoughts on what might work best, and it's their job to play with all the possible scenarios. It's no secret that Tara Nattress wants more IB at the elementary level. Two or three years ago they were exploring the idea of setting up mirror programs on an East-West basis for immersion, IB, Montessori to give even more kids access to option schools. Personally I think we don't have the space for option schools any more, but it doesn't surprise me to see that there's discussion of replacing ATS with IB since ATS really is so random.

id be a little more confident in natrass's motives has she not chosen discovery as her home school when she moved here. It's all the proof I need that "all schools are good schools" is just a talking point that not even the superintendent of instruction believes or walks.

BTW, Eliminating option schools will make south Arlington less crowded and north arlingto more crowded. The mc in SA will move to NA or just leave the county altogether. Any newcomers will go to NA.

What are you talking about "eliminating option schools?" If I understood the Working Group's recommendations correctly, APS will be increasing choices.

It's a constant suggestion in these threads, as if they contribute to overcrowding.

Also, as the school population grows, option schools have stayed static. if APS wants to increase options, they need to open more option schools.

Not true, except for HB. All the other schools have been increasing enrollment year-over-year, some more than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

+1,000. I'm no fan of John Chadwick, but the rest of the staff are good and hard-working people who care about the students in our community. Of course they have their own thoughts on what might work best, and it's their job to play with all the possible scenarios. It's no secret that Tara Nattress wants more IB at the elementary level. Two or three years ago they were exploring the idea of setting up mirror programs on an East-West basis for immersion, IB, Montessori to give even more kids access to option schools. Personally I think we don't have the space for option schools any more, but it doesn't surprise me to see that there's discussion of replacing ATS with IB since ATS really is so random.

id be a little more confident in natrass's motives has she not chosen discovery as her home school when she moved here. It's all the proof I need that "all schools are good schools" is just a talking point that not even the superintendent of instruction believes or walks.

BTW, Eliminating option schools will make south Arlington less crowded and north arlingto more crowded. The mc in SA will move to NA or just leave the county altogether. Any newcomers will go to NA.

What are you talking about "eliminating option schools?" If I understood the Working Group's recommendations correctly, APS will be increasing choices.

It's a constant suggestion in these threads, as if they contribute to overcrowding.

Also, as the school population grows, option schools have stayed static. if APS wants to increase options, they need to open more option schools.

Not true, except for HB. All the other schools have been increasing enrollment year-over-year, some more than others.

Key and Claremont are up about 100 students per school since 2012. Campbell and ATS up about 20 students. My guess is that option enrollment
is almost certainly shrinking as a share of all elementary enrollment. Options are not "growing" and probably can't without new facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

+1,000. I'm no fan of John Chadwick, but the rest of the staff are good and hard-working people who care about the students in our community. Of course they have their own thoughts on what might work best, and it's their job to play with all the possible scenarios. It's no secret that Tara Nattress wants more IB at the elementary level. Two or three years ago they were exploring the idea of setting up mirror programs on an East-West basis for immersion, IB, Montessori to give even more kids access to option schools. Personally I think we don't have the space for option schools any more, but it doesn't surprise me to see that there's discussion of replacing ATS with IB since ATS really is so random.

id be a little more confident in natrass's motives has she not chosen discovery as her home school when she moved here. It's all the proof I need that "all schools are good schools" is just a talking point that not even the superintendent of instruction believes or walks.

BTW, Eliminating option schools will make south Arlington less crowded and north arlingto more crowded. The mc in SA will move to NA or just leave the county altogether. Any newcomers will go to NA.

What are you talking about "eliminating option schools?" If I understood the Working Group's recommendations correctly, APS will be increasing choices.

It's a constant suggestion in these threads, as if they contribute to overcrowding.

Also, as the school population grows, option schools have stayed static. if APS wants to increase options, they need to open more option schools.

Not true, except for HB. All the other schools have been increasing enrollment year-over-year, some more than others.

Key and Claremont are up about 100 students per school since 2012. Campbell and ATS up about 20 students. My guess is that option enrollment
is almost certainly shrinking as a share of all elementary enrollment. Options are not "growing" and probably can't without new facilities.

I didn't mean to say they are growing proportionally with overall enrollment. They are constrained by their physical plants, and each can only grow so
much, even with trailers. The buildings/sites they are on are only so big, and could not get bigger if they were neighborhood schools instead. So yes, we'd need to open more option schools if we really wanted to increase choices.

[Anonymous]

7:17PP - ATS is up by more than 20 students. They've added another preschool class, they've added more "bubble" classes and they're going to 5 K classes next year. There are currently around 539 kids in a school built for 465, not including next year's 5th K class.

The thing I'm not sure anyone has considered is that by adding that 5th class for K this year, they're basically guaranteeing that in two years, almost nobody will get in via lottery. The VPI kids and sibling preference kids already take up the majority of new K slots, and many families space their kids two years apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

If you compare the walkability rankings on a percentage basis to those on a number of students basis, there actually aren't a lot of huge difference. Some schools move up or down by 2 or 3 spots, lots stay the same, only one moves significantly: