APS Boundaries Work Session Watch Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about Option A if you are the one Tuckahoe unit behind Reed that has to move to Reed and end up with all of McKinley?

I don't live in that PU but I would raise holy hell about being the only one to go. That is nuts.

I don't see how it's better for kids to just pluck 1-2 units and move them. That's worse for kids.

But it’s good for the kids at McKinley and that’s all that matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the purpose of the Taylor island?

There is no taylor island. They are keeping kids at taylor still at taylor.

Eastern Lyon village didn’t want to go to key unless all of Lyon village went to key (or at least all of the parts of Lyon village that are currently at asfs). So they moved 24130 back to asfs, and similarly they moved the two units north of lee highway that got moved to taylor In the original proposal back to asfs.
Since they were told to better balance enrollment and they could not come up with another way of filling taylor (It was at 80% in the original proposal), they left most of the kids that would have gotten moved out of taylor at taylor.

Asfs has an island in option b, but who cares. It’s only an island because of an unpopulated block (the one with giant) is attached to a Virginia square planning unit instead of 24110. Move the block (which is giant— no kids on that block) to its own planning unit and zone it to asfs. Presto. No island.

Wait, how can the Lyon Village families have such strong say into where they end up when it makes the boundaries so complicated and disjointed?

For what its worth, both these maps have kids whose houses literally touch the ASFS property being bused to Taylor. That's also true now, but isn't the point of these adjustments to fix problems like that. My kids are way passed elementary school now, but I would be pretty mad if that doesn't get fixed.

[Anonymous]

Option A is marginally better, but not by much. It's obvious the SB are not negotiating in good faith - there are other motivations behind the scenes that are driving decision making (McK PTA, option school moves). can we all just agree that this kind of decision making and lack of transparency is terrible for the long term health of APS, and the whole SB needs to be voted out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option A is marginally better, but not by much. It's obvious the SB are not negotiating in good faith - there are other motivations behind the scenes that are driving decision making (McK PTA, option school moves). can we all just agree that this kind of decision making and lack of transparency is terrible for the long term health of APS, and the whole SB needs to be voted out?

Well 2 of them are retiring this term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option A is marginally better, but not by much. It's obvious the SB are not negotiating in good faith - there are other motivations behind the scenes that are driving decision making (McK PTA, option school moves). can we all just agree that this kind of decision making and lack of transparency is terrible for the long term health of APS, and the whole SB needs to be voted out?

Well 2 of them are retiring this term.

I disagree about the lack of transparency or that the school board is not negotiating in good faith.
I think they have been extremely transparent. And are continuing to be transparent- they have stated publicly that they still think they have excess capacity in the North West- and that is a driver for the decision making.
They have stated that they are uncertain about the impacts of the pandemic on numbers- and that is a driver for the decision making.
Just because you disagree with a decision doesn't mean that it is not being done transparently or 'not in good faith.'
I think the SB has a tough job. I am beyond furious with them about their lackadaisacal approach to reopening schools- but I will not fault them on boundary decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the purpose of the Taylor island?

There is no taylor island. They are keeping kids at taylor still at taylor.

Eastern Lyon village didn’t want to go to key unless all of Lyon village went to key (or at least all of the parts of Lyon village that are currently at asfs). So they moved 24130 back to asfs, and similarly they moved the two units north of lee highway that got moved to taylor In the original proposal back to asfs.
Since they were told to better balance enrollment and they could not come up with another way of filling taylor (It was at 80% in the original proposal), they left most of the kids that would have gotten moved out of taylor at taylor.

Asfs has an island in option b, but who cares. It’s only an island because of an unpopulated block (the one with giant) is attached to a Virginia square planning unit instead of 24110. Move the block (which is giant— no kids on that block) to its own planning unit and zone it to asfs. Presto. No island.

Wait, how can the Lyon Village families have such strong say into where they end up when it makes the boundaries so complicated and disjointed?

For what its worth, both these maps have kids whose houses literally touch the ASFS property being bused to Taylor. That's also true now, but isn't the point of these adjustments to fix problems like that. My kids are way passed elementary school now, but I would be pretty mad if that doesn't get fixed.

This isn't true though. The kids across from Kirkwood (western lyon village) currently goes to taylor and stays at taylor in both maps. They are very close to asfs, but kirkwood is a busy road, and they are bussed to asfs. They would be walkable to Key, but they aren't zoned at key in any map. Zoning the walk zone for key to key was never going to happen.
The kids who are in the asfs walk zone (who also currently go to taylor), are at asfs in both options.
I don't have a strong dog in this fight -- my kids will be out of asfs by the time this hits, but we don't really gain much by confusing people who are not as familiar with the geography of the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

The problem is you can not pack Key with any more kids. If you bring in western Lyon Village to ASFS, then you have to send either the planning units in Cherrydale where ASFS sits to Taylor or the ones in Virginia square. The VA Sq planning units are not contiguous to other Taylor planning units. or you bus more of Rosslyn to Taylor. That’s a long bus ride and a number of those kids count on school for breakfast. If they’re late, there’s no breakfast. There’s no easy solution here without another school in the R-B corridor.

[Anonymous]

I am furious that they would even entertain the McK PTA map.

[Anonymous]

Also, please don’t add more trailers to Key. In the more urban R-B corridor, the Key fields, playground and basketball courts are heavily used by the community. Please don’t take that space away

[Anonymous]

This isn't true though. The kids across from Kirkwood (western lyon village) currently goes to taylor and stays at taylor in both maps. They are very close to asfs, but kirkwood is a busy road, and they are bussed to asfs. They would be walkable to Key, but they aren't zoned at key in any map. Zoning the walk zone for key to key was never going to happen.
The kids who are in the asfs walk zone (who also currently go to taylor), are at asfs in both options.
I don't have a strong dog in this fight -- my kids will be out of asfs by the time this hits, but we don't really gain much by confusing people who are not as familiar with the geography of the neighborhood.

This is true, in the sense that these kids are already being sent to Taylor. But it would be a lot cheaper to get a crossing guard at the one crosswalk across Kirkwood that leads up to ASFS, and there are kids on the ASFS side of Kirkwood, who are once again being told that they can't go to the school that is directly behind their house. For the original map, all those planning units went to ASFS, which makes infinitely more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am furious that they would even entertain the McK PTA map.

This. And then they slap themselves on the back for "listening to the community." No, you just listened to one small, vocal faction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am furious that they would even entertain the McK PTA map.

This. And then they slap themselves on the back for "listening to the community." No, you just listened to one small, vocal faction.

And the McKinley PTA is driven by the predictable neighborhoods. The McKinley PTA doesn't even represent everyone. This proposal is NOT beneficial for McKinley as a whole if these kids end up in another overcrowded school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am furious that they would even entertain the McK PTA map.

This. And then they slap themselves on the back for "listening to the community." No, you just listened to one small, vocal faction.

And the McKinley PTA is driven by the predictable neighborhoods. The McKinley PTA doesn't even represent everyone. This proposal is NOT beneficial for McKinley as a whole if these kids end up in another overcrowded school.

Your perspective on this depends on where you sit. 40% of the current school is being offloaded to other schools in the initial proposal. Hundreds of those kids will move from a vastly overcrowded McKinley to vastly overcrowded Ashlawn and vastly overcrowded Glebe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if they fill Reed with all of McK, there will be nowhere to to place the Tuckahoe kids when it's turned option. Reed can't be at 100%.

Untrue. That's when you move units south and east if you need to. By lifting McK and moving it in total to Reed it doesn't count as shifting a planning unit to a new school, thereby leaving you free to mix them up in two years. If you move any others now, you lock them in and give you less flexibility when you do the whole-county move and close Tuckahoe. It's why they don't want to push MM to Tuckahoe, as it ties up the ability to close Tuckahoe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am furious that they would even entertain the McK PTA map.

This. And then they slap themselves on the back for "listening to the community." No, you just listened to one small, vocal faction.

And the McKinley PTA is driven by the predictable neighborhoods. The McKinley PTA doesn't even represent everyone. This proposal is NOT beneficial for McKinley as a whole if these kids end up in another overcrowded school.

Your perspective on this depends on where you sit. 40% of the current school is being offloaded to other schools in the initial proposal. Hundreds of those kids will move from a vastly overcrowded McKinley to vastly overcrowded Ashlawn and vastly overcrowded Glebe.

Totally agree. As stated, this proposal is not beneficial for 60% of McKinley. Yet the PTA is pushing it.