Tuckahoe by the numbers - how can it stay a neighborhood school?

[Anonymous]

I'm a Tuckahoe parent and I haven't seen anything from anyone saying "it doesn't matter where an option school goes so long as it isn't Tuckahoe." I've be sent things asking me to take surveys and giving me planning units and suggestions to consider. And I've heard parents who could end up at Reed, McKinley & Nottingham express an interest in keeping a neighborhood school at Tuckahoe. The drama on this thread is weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tuckahoe should form a second PTA. One PTA that represents the close walkers and another PTA for those who can't wait to go to Reed, McKinley and Nottingham. By the numbers the Tuckahoe walkers are in the minority. What about a PTA recall...is that even possible?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are APS resources and the Tuckahoe website being used to lobby for options that aren't inclusive of all APS students? It looks like APS the SB and Tuckahoe administration are endorsing the non-inclusive views of the Tuckahoe PTA.

Can the PTA use APS resources to push a position? They have a few pages just about this change?

https://tuckahoe.apsva.us/aps-survey-information-please-read-take-surveys/

Crazy.

Send a letter to APS and the Tuckahoe principal about it. They are lobbying for a position that isn't even in the best interest of all the families in their boundary. It's pretty disgusting.

Just curious: are you a current Tuckahoe parent? I'm not, but I can't imagine anyone who currently goes there not feeling connected to the school and hoping to be moved to another school (unless they were just moved to Tuckahoe during the last boundary change).

Most of the families that are walkable to Reed are looking forward to being moved to Reed. Those are current Tuckahoe families.

Are you one of them?

Yes

Okay then, why don't you organize a group of like-minded individuals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tuckahoe needs a new PTA because the families who will be rezoned to Reed/Nottingham/McKinley should want a great option school nearby. ATS is impossible to get into. If we listen to the Tuckahoe PTA, they will try to fill it to capacity with unnatural acts. Really think about who the Tuckahoe PTA is representing. Parents who live a few blocks from Tuckahoe? Or the entire Tuckahoe PTA community?

None of the option schools want to be moved to Tuckahoe. I think there are locations where some programs that are more portable might consider moving, but not Tuckahoe.

If it becomes an option school, the option schools would prefer it to be a new one (second location of particular focus or new option all together). If the families of NA want a great option school, this is your chance to create one. Don't steal one that others worked hard to build up at their current locations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These Tuckahoe parents make me so embarrassed for Arlington.

We are talking about the same PTA board that struggled to understand that kids with nut allergies can't eat nuts.

that
What? The current board? That is ridiculous. What happened?

PTA and Tuckahoe principal fought implementing the APS guidelines on use of food in the classrooms for celebrations and rewards. Teachers (especially subs) were giving out candy, including stuff like mini peanut butter cups, in the classrooms as rewards and classes were having parties that with food that wasn't nut-free despite there being kids with nut (and other food) allergies in the classroom and despite it being against APS policy. Principal punted the issue to the PTA, who resisted changing parties to food-free because apparently food at parties is a Tuckahoe "tradition" and you can't have a fun class party without food. They justified it by the APS policy technically just being that schools were "strongly encouraged" to make celebrations food-free. Ultimately the PTA and principal decided only to encourage classes to make parties food-free but teachers can decide whether to follow that and parents of children with food allergies can make their own decisions about whether to pull their kids from class parties.

The PTA did a survey on the issue but then decided to withhold the results, allegedly because it showed overwhelming support for getting rid of food at class parties but the PTA board didn't want that. I say "allegedly" because no one can confirm it given that the PTA wouldn't share the results, even with parents on the Allergy Awareness committee.

[Anonymous]

So is the Tuckahoe PTA really pushing to make Lee highway walkable? That doesn't sound like a good idea.

[Anonymous]

So is the Tuckahoe PTA really pushing to make Lee highway walkable? That doesn't sound like a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Tuckahoe parent and I haven't seen anything from anyone saying "it doesn't matter where an option school goes so long as it isn't Tuckahoe." I've be sent things asking me to take surveys and giving me planning units and suggestions to consider. And I've heard parents who could end up at Reed, McKinley & Nottingham express an interest in keeping a neighborhood school at Tuckahoe. The drama on this thread is weird.

See this page on your PTA website and the linked letter: https://tuckahoe.apsva.us/aps-elementary-planning-initiativeg/

You might agree with the PTA Board on this issue but don't pretend they're not advocating for a specific outcome, it's disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These Tuckahoe parents make me so embarrassed for Arlington.

We are talking about the same PTA board that struggled to understand that kids with nut allergies can't eat nuts.

that
What? The current board? That is ridiculous. What happened?

PTA and Tuckahoe principal fought implementing the APS guidelines on use of food in the classrooms for celebrations and rewards. Teachers (especially subs) were giving out candy, including stuff like mini peanut butter cups, in the classrooms as rewards and classes were having parties that with food that wasn't nut-free despite there being kids with nut (and other food) allergies in the classroom and despite it being against APS policy. Principal punted the issue to the PTA, who resisted changing parties to food-free because apparently food at parties is a Tuckahoe "tradition" and you can't have a fun class party without food. They justified it by the APS policy technically just being that schools were "strongly encouraged" to make celebrations food-free. Ultimately the PTA and principal decided only to encourage classes to make parties food-free but teachers can decide whether to follow that and parents of children with food allergies can make their own decisions about whether to pull their kids from class parties.

The PTA did a survey on the issue but then decided to withhold the results, allegedly because it showed overwhelming support for getting rid of food at class parties but the PTA board didn't want that. I say "allegedly" because no one can confirm it given that the PTA wouldn't share the results, even with parents on the Allergy Awareness committee.

That is dreadful. Was that this year?

[Anonymous]

they are advocating not to eliminate their school. is there a theory under which that is wrong? how is it different than a school advocating to address its overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they are advocating not to eliminate their school. is there a theory under which that is wrong? how is it different than a school advocating to address its overcrowding?

Sounds to me like the PTA is trying to protect the property values of the houses very close to Tuckahoe and not represent the entire PTA community.

[Anonymous]

Sounds to me like the PTA is trying to protect the property values of the houses very close to Tuckahoe and not represent the entire PTA community.

+1000 - nailed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sounds to me like the PTA is trying to protect the property values of the houses very close to Tuckahoe and not represent the entire PTA community.

+1000 - nailed it.

Everyone knew this when the post went up on Nextdoor. Guess how far they live from Tuckahoe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they are advocating not to eliminate their school. is there a theory under which that is wrong? how is it different than a school advocating to address its overcrowding?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a PTA advocating for the best interests of its school, but there are a couple of issues here:

1) They shouldn't pretend they aren't advocating for a resolution that would come at the expense of others. Keeping Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school means not relocating an option program from another community that also may need more neighborhood seats, and maintaining an arrangement of neighborhood vs. option schools that requires greater busing means taking school funds that could have gone to other needs and applying it to transportation instead. There still may be good arguments for keeping Tuckahoe a neighborhood school, but those arguments need to address why that's a better solution for the system as a whole rather than taking a "screw everyone else, I want mine" approach.

2) The PTA needs to make sure that the position for which they're advocating actually represents the interests of the full Tuckahoe community rather than just a small subset. There are a lot of Tuckahoe families who currently are bused to Tuckahoe but that could be walkers to other schools, and many of those families would prefer to walk to their actual neighborhood schools rather than be bused further away. By advocating for keeping Tuckahoe a neighborhood school that necessarily would include those families, the PTA is ignoring their needs and interests. This issue is why, for instance, the Nottingham PTA has stopped taking positions on boundary issues (it provides information/updates, but does not advocate or encourage parents to advocate for a particular position). It knows that different families will have conflicting preferences and since it can't properly represent everyone's preferences, it's not going to represent any of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they are advocating not to eliminate their school. is there a theory under which that is wrong? how is it different than a school advocating to address its overcrowding?

Sounds to me like the PTA is trying to protect the property values of the houses very close to Tuckahoe and not represent the entire PTA community.

That's some mighty fine pot calling there. I'm sure none of the surrounding schools have ever pushed a policy that served themselves above the greater good.

I don't necessarily agree with the Tuckahoe PTA, but I don't think anything they are doing is any more egregious than all the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they are advocating not to eliminate their school. is there a theory under which that is wrong? how is it different than a school advocating to address its overcrowding?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a PTA advocating for the best interests of its school, but there are a couple of issues here:

1) They shouldn't pretend they aren't advocating for a resolution that would come at the expense of others. Keeping Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school means not relocating an option program from another community that also may need more neighborhood seats, and maintaining an arrangement of neighborhood vs. option schools that requires greater busing means taking school funds that could have gone to other needs and applying it to transportation instead. There still may be good arguments for keeping Tuckahoe a neighborhood school, but those arguments need to address why that's a better solution for the system as a whole rather than taking a "screw everyone else, I want mine" approach.

2) The PTA needs to make sure that the position for which they're advocating actually represents the interests of the full Tuckahoe community rather than just a small subset. There are a lot of Tuckahoe families who currently are bused to Tuckahoe but that could be walkers to other schools, and many of those families would prefer to walk to their actual neighborhood schools rather than be bused further away. By advocating for keeping Tuckahoe a neighborhood school that necessarily would include those families, the PTA is ignoring their needs and interests. This issue is why, for instance, the Nottingham PTA has stopped taking positions on boundary issues (it provides information/updates, but does not advocate or encourage parents to advocate for a particular position). It knows that different families will have conflicting preferences and since it can't properly represent everyone's preferences, it's not going to represent any of them.

Well said.