What do you expect from APS staff (option/neighborhood) on 4/30?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh . . . how would you feel if they moved 3 option schools to the NW. Might that tax your neighborhood schools? Please have some perspective beyond your little bubble. And I live in the same area.

What is with all the assumptions here PP. Maybe you are talking to someone else. I live in North Arlington. Plus my child will be in MS by the time this happens so I have no skin in the game.

My point was having 4 options in the south is not a great scenario for either north or south. It will be difficult for many families in the north to access the school and if they do it will overtax the school in the south.
The SB's statement seems to imply they want to option schools to be primarily for students in South Arlington b/c if North Arlington families use them it could cause a problem. This seems to go against equal access, as would moving 4 to the north.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, the whole thing is such a farce and isn't really about the data they're analyzing. If you look at NW and were to recreate the table they used last time, it suggests a very different result. For those who haven't read it, they've dropped the "Growth" consideration and have added in things like proportion of economically disadvantaged students, transfer rates, accessibility via mass transit, but for more of them they don't really draw any conclusions and just say they need to look at them further. The only criteria for which they include hard analysis and recommendations of sites that are relevant to the NW schools are Walkers, Buses and Geography. It's worth noting that they have once again baked in the Geography exception for Nottingham under Walkers that they previously acknowledged was an error and pulled out. Whether this is because they were sloppy or because they were disingenuous when they pulled it out before is anyone's guess. For Buses, they made the list of schools that made the cut much shorter, so the school that actually made the cut got a check in my table. However, there was a clear break between schools needing 4 or fewer buses and schools needing 7 or more buses, so those that need 7 or more but didn't make the top three in the county were given a half check in my table. Here's the result:

Ashlawn gets a check for Geography, half a check for Buses, nothing for Walkers = 2.5
Barrett gets a check for Geography, nothing else = 1
Discovery gets half a check for Buses, nothing else = .5
Jamestown gets checks for Walkers and Buses, not for Geography = 2
McKinley gets a half check for Buses, nothing else = .5
Nottingham was given a check by the staff under Walkers again, but if they were to correct it the same way as last time would have zero checks: 1*
Tuckahoe was given no checks = 0

So even if you accept their Walker exception for Nottingham, that's only a 1-check school, while Ashlawn is a 2.5 and Jamestown is a 2. McKinley is really interesting, because even though it missed all of the check marks (save the .5 I gave them for buses), it falls just outside the top candidates in all three criteria. If you were to rank the schools in each criteria (1 being most favorable for neighborhood and 7 being most favorable for option) and then add up the scores across all three categories, here's where you end up, in ranked order by final score:

Ashlawn = 16
Jamestown = 15
McKinley = 15
Discovery = 11
Barrett = 9
Tuckahoe = 7
Nottingham = 6

So if you actually look at their data and criteria, the staff has pulled Nottingham out as a top candidate despite it actually being a really crappy candidate. Meanwhile, they've ignored Ashlawn, Jamestown and McKinley, all of which are are potentially strong candidates.

So yep, ATS to Nottingham.

Whoever you are, you are singing my song!

Did anyone else download and save the original excel file before staff realized they'd uploaded a bit too much information that shouldn't be public? If you go through the different sheets of that file, it becomes blatantly obvious that facts have no role here.

Does it have a different file name? I wonder if it's still on the server and accessible even if it's not linked to the page anymore.

Same name. Get ride of the -1 at the end before the extension.

Ohh, you meant the data table from the first analysis, I thought you meant from the second analysis. But interesting, I hadn't seen that before. I haven't dug into all of the tabs yet, I will later. Any interesting highlights you've found so far?

[Anonymous]

Okay, I couldn't resist digging into it now. From what I'm seeing, and assuming IB refers to ATS (because ATS otherwise isn't listed), it looks like Tara, Gladis and Lisa have all had Nottingham marked for ATS from the start. Maybe the IB label means they are contemplating rebranding ATS as an IB elementary school as part of the move?

It looks like they've also been in agreement all along that Campbell should stay EL and immersion should be at Carlin Springs. They originally thought the other immersion program should be at ASFS, but I guess they realized that wasn't going to be workable. So ATS was potentially on the table to become neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I couldn't resist digging into it now. From what I'm seeing, and assuming IB refers to ATS (because ATS otherwise isn't listed), it looks like Tara, Gladis and Lisa have all had Nottingham marked for ATS from the start. Maybe the IB label means they are contemplating rebranding ATS as an IB elementary school as part of the move?

It looks like they've also been in agreement all along that Campbell should stay EL and immersion should be at Carlin Springs. They originally thought the other immersion program should be at ASFS, but I guess they realized that wasn't going to be workable. So ATS was potentially on the table to become neighborhood?

It is hard to accept anything they say after seeing that. So, so dishonest.

[Anonymous]

The staff groups Ashlawn with SW rather than NW? That explains some things. Wonder if boundaries across 50 will be more flexible as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I couldn't resist digging into it now. From what I'm seeing, and assuming IB refers to ATS (because ATS otherwise isn't listed), it looks like Tara, Gladis and Lisa have all had Nottingham marked for ATS from the start. Maybe the IB label means they are contemplating rebranding ATS as an IB elementary school as part of the move?

It looks like they've also been in agreement all along that Campbell should stay EL and immersion should be at Carlin Springs. They originally thought the other immersion program should be at ASFS, but I guess they realized that wasn't going to be workable. So ATS was potentially on the table to become neighborhood?

It is hard to accept anything they say after seeing that. So, so dishonest.

Could someone please post the full link? I'm not seeing the -1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The staff groups Ashlawn with SW rather than NW? That explains some things. Wonder if boundaries across 50 will be more flexible as a result.

Although the school itself is north of 50, its boundaries are 50 and Wilson Blvd for a long stretch and it then extends really far east.

[Anonymous]

Is there still a chance they won’t move any of the schools / programs?

[Anonymous]

I would imagine Key is having a collective heart attack right now. I do not see any realistic probability that it will remain in its current location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I couldn't resist digging into it now. From what I'm seeing, and assuming IB refers to ATS (because ATS otherwise isn't listed), it looks like Tara, Gladis and Lisa have all had Nottingham marked for ATS from the start. Maybe the IB label means they are contemplating rebranding ATS as an IB elementary school as part of the move?

It looks like they've also been in agreement all along that Campbell should stay EL and immersion should be at Carlin Springs. They originally thought the other immersion program should be at ASFS, but I guess they realized that wasn't going to be workable. So ATS was potentially on the table to become neighborhood?

It is hard to accept anything they say after seeing that. So, so dishonest.

Could someone please post the full link? I'm not seeing the -1.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Data-Table-04122018-Web.xlsx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine Key is having a collective heart attack right now. I do not see any realistic probability that it will remain in its current location.

The numbers don't bear it out, so they really shouldn't be surprised. The area needs more neighborhood seats and has insufficient Spanish speakers, or at least no more native Spanish speakers than they could get further south along the Pike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I couldn't resist digging into it now. From what I'm seeing, and assuming IB refers to ATS (because ATS otherwise isn't listed), it looks like Tara, Gladis and Lisa have all had Nottingham marked for ATS from the start. Maybe the IB label means they are contemplating rebranding ATS as an IB elementary school as part of the move?

It looks like they've also been in agreement all along that Campbell should stay EL and immersion should be at Carlin Springs. They originally thought the other immersion program should be at ASFS, but I guess they realized that wasn't going to be workable. So ATS was potentially on the table to become neighborhood?

It is hard to accept anything they say after seeing that. So, so dishonest.

Could someone please post the full link? I'm not seeing the -1.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Data-Table-04122018-Web.xlsx

Wow.

In all fairness, it doesn't mean they've had it marked from the start. There aren't dates on when they made their assessments, and I'm going to assume they did so after having reviewed all of the data. Big mistake posting this.

[Anonymous]

What's really cute about the way they clustered the schools for their purposes is that they extended NE all the way out to include the ATS site even though if you draw it by straight lines, ATS in undeniably in the west. That lets them further justify putting an option school at Nottingham by saying it's the best balance of option locations, because NW, NE, M will all have one, SW will have two and SE won't have have any but Henry is really close to the border so it's okay. More honest alignments would mean that the ATS/IB move to Nottingham would put two option programs in NW, two in SW, one in M, and none in either NE or SE, but then they'd have a problem because if 4 option programs in South would be unfair to them, 4 option programs in West should be unfair as well. Having the NE cluster reach into NW to take the ATS site fixes that for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I couldn't resist digging into it now. From what I'm seeing, and assuming IB refers to ATS (because ATS otherwise isn't listed), it looks like Tara, Gladis and Lisa have all had Nottingham marked for ATS from the start. Maybe the IB label means they are contemplating rebranding ATS as an IB elementary school as part of the move?

It looks like they've also been in agreement all along that Campbell should stay EL and immersion should be at Carlin Springs. They originally thought the other immersion program should be at ASFS, but I guess they realized that wasn't going to be workable. So ATS was potentially on the table to become neighborhood?

It is hard to accept anything they say after seeing that. So, so dishonest.

Could someone please post the full link? I'm not seeing the -1.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Data-Table-04122018-Web.xlsx

Wow.

In all fairness, it doesn't mean they've had it marked from the start. There aren't dates on when they made their assessments, and I'm going to assume they did so after having reviewed all of the data. Big mistake posting this.

What it means that even though the staff has saying publicly that they're not considering which program should go where at this stage, they're only looking for optimal sites, they had in fact come up with their preferred arrangement of all of the programs within the sites before they released the first round of analysis. They lied about their process, which makes all of their other public statements suspect as well. It certainly make sense now why they overlooked their errors on Nottingham, they'd already decided they wanted it for ATS/IB and if the first pass got them the result they wanted, they weren't going to scrutinize it too closely.

[Anonymous]

Where will Key immersion be moved to?