the Key/ASFS building switch...

[Anonymous]

A toddler and elementary playground, a sprayground, heavily-used basketball and tennis courts (I've taken tennis lessons there myself), and a picnic shelter where we personally have been to at least four birthday parties over the years (and we don't even live near there). A lot of people would be rightfully ticked off if they razed all of that to add some extra trailers to ASFS instead of doing the swap.

But do go on thinking only about yourself. It's a good look for you.

Tennis courts, basketball courts, and picnic shelter can stay and be used after school and on weekends by the public (like facilities at other elementary schools. The playground can be rebuilt to serve the school. The only thing which would might be completely lost would be the sprayground. That's would be a loss, for sure, but perhaps it could be retained and just turned off during school hours.

None of this does anything for me personally. My kids are in HS now. We live next to ASFS (zoned for Taylor), but my kids did not get in and they went to Key (and ultimately Gunston). The county needs more elementary school seats (though not as badly as it needs HS seats), and there are not a lot of places to add capacity without leaving an elementary school without outdoor play space. This is an opportunity to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A toddler and elementary playground, a sprayground, heavily-used basketball and tennis courts (I've taken tennis lessons there myself), and a picnic shelter where we personally have been to at least four birthday parties over the years (and we don't even live near there). A lot of people would be rightfully ticked off if they razed all of that to add some extra trailers to ASFS instead of doing the swap.

But do go on thinking only about yourself. It's a good look for you.

Tennis courts, basketball courts, and picnic shelter can stay and be used after school and on weekends by the public (like facilities at other elementary schools. The playground can be rebuilt to serve the school. The only thing which would might be completely lost would be the sprayground. That's would be a loss, for sure, but perhaps it could be retained and just turned off during school hours.

None of this does anything for me personally. My kids are in HS now. We live next to ASFS (zoned for Taylor), but my kids did not get in and they went to Key (and ultimately Gunston). The county needs more elementary school seats (though not as badly as it needs HS seats), and there are not a lot of places to add capacity without leaving an elementary school without outdoor play space. This is an opportunity to do that.

No way. Suggesting schools take a public park is a complete non-starter as PP suggested. There are places to acquire land but the County and APS can't work together to sharpen pencils let alone plan for more than 20 minutes in the future.

[Anonymous]

No way. Suggesting schools take a public park is a complete non-starter as PP suggested. There are places to acquire land but the County and APS can't work together to sharpen pencils let alone plan for more than 20 minutes in the future.

I think you are probably right, but this would be a little different because it would be taking a park and turning it into a school playground, which is kind of like a park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No way. Suggesting schools take a public park is a complete non-starter as PP suggested. There are places to acquire land but the County and APS can't work together to sharpen pencils let alone plan for more than 20 minutes in the future.

I think you are probably right, but this would be a little different because it would be taking a park and turning it into a school playground, which is kind of like a park.

Not to the senior citizens who are the powerful voting bloc you are going to antagonize in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No way. Suggesting schools take a public park is a complete non-starter as PP suggested. There are places to acquire land but the County and APS can't work together to sharpen pencils let alone plan for more than 20 minutes in the future.

I think you are probably right, but this would be a little different because it would be taking a park and turning it into a school playground, which is kind of like a park.

Not to the senior citizens who are the powerful voting bloc you are going to antagonize in the process.

Are there a lot of senior citizens hanging out at the playground and the sprayground at Hayes Park?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh. Those kids actually walk to Tuckahoe.

Elementary kids cross Sycamore? Why all the angst about Kirkwood then, Sycamore is a much more major road.

Kirkwood by ASF is a four-lane commuter cut-through from Washington Blvd. to Lee Highway and Spout Run. Sycamore is a two-lane road from some neighborhoods to Lee Highway and 66. It is not a "much more major road" than Kirkwood.

Actually, Kirkwood is only one lane in each direction. It does have commuter traffic, but so does Sycamore.

Which is why APS provides a bus for both -- they are both major roads which kindergartners cannot cross safely by themselves. Why are we still arguing about Kirkwood? What does that even have to do with anything?

I get it, the ASFS trolls have come out, and so we keep arguing and fighting and spreading misinformation about this swap. There isn't going to be any new information until January.

Until then, this is all we definitively know:
1. ASFS was 83% made up of kids from the Key/ASFS zone last year, and by 2020 or 2021 will be over 95% kids from the key/asfs zone. You can determine this by looking at the transfer reports, they don't have the exact numbers of students for the 2018-2019 school year which is why they used the 2017-2018 transfers numbers. The kids from the ASFS/Key zone are a different demographic than the area around ASFS by pretty much every measure. They live in apartments versus single family homes, they are mostly working families, and they don't all live in Lyon Village, and a significant number of them rely on public transit for commuting and do not regularly drive.
2. APS could not figure out a way to draw boundaries around ASFS that would allow a majority of those kids to stay at ASFS without the school being incredibly over crowded. The planning units that would be the most likely to be re-zoned were the ones that had the highest farms rates, or the ones made up of actual current walkers to the school. Conversely, they have been talking for years about how they have trouble attracting native spanish speakers to apply to the immersion program at key, since the majority of the neighborhood does not choose it (even when they had neighborhood preference) and there is not a large concentration of native spanish speakers nearby.
3. The school board mostly agreed with APS and requested that they make a direct announcement in hopes that they would lessen debate and angst. The school board was given two options for presenting this, they went with the most open and direct communication (as opposed to having them be options during the boundary revision). Postponing making key into a neighborhood school until 2020 or 2021 gives them time to figure out if there needs to be two neighborhood schools in the area, or if there is a better place for the immersion program.
4. The main concern both APS and the school board has is that the immersion program is too large for the current ASFS building. There were questions about how to build the building out as quickly as possible. Its interesting that building out asfs when it was a neighborhood school was never really discussed, but its being seriously considered since the building may house an option program. I think this speaks volumes to the commitment that APS has to maintaining the immersion program.
5. Most of the "Keep key on key" arguments were debunked by the memos they published. The swap was not recommended because lyon village is rich, but more because they didn't want to disrupt 3 other communities (that had apparently written in saying that they didn't want to move). There are only at most 13 native spanish speakers that are not provided bus service to key. The people who would most hurt from keeping the immersion program on key are the poorest kids in that neighborhood since the affordable housing planning units were the ones most likely to move. The only pocket of remotely walkable spanish speakers to key are in Woodbury park, which are currently bused and the added distance to asfs only adds 2 minutes to their bus ride. That planning unit is also within a mile walk of asfs, so parents would still be able to walk to school events if needed.
6. Both the key and asfs buildings are really old and not particularly desirable compared to discovery or fleet, or even long branch or taylor. ASFS has a dirt field that's about to be converted to artificial turf and sits on 66. The "fancy lab" isn't really any nicer than the art room -- I'm not really sure what money was spent on there, but it sure doesn't look like it cost that much. Key has quite a few classrooms without any windows. This entire thing just centers around where the buildings are located, nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Until then, this is all we definitively know:
1. ASFS was 83% made up of kids from the Key/ASFS zone last year, and by 2020 or 2021 will be over 95% kids from the key/asfs zone. You can determine this by looking at the transfer reports, they don't have the exact numbers of students for the 2018-2019 school year which is why they used the 2017-2018 transfers numbers. The kids from the ASFS/Key zone are a different demographic than the area around ASFS by pretty much every measure. They live in apartments versus single family homes, they are mostly working families, and they don't all live in Lyon Village, and a significant number of them rely on public transit for commuting and do not regularly drive.
2. APS could not figure out a way to draw boundaries around ASFS that would allow a majority of those kids to stay at ASFS without the school being incredibly over crowded. The planning units that would be the most likely to be re-zoned were the ones that had the highest farms rates, or the ones made up of actual current walkers to the school. Conversely, they have been talking for years about how they have trouble attracting native spanish speakers to apply to the immersion program at key, since the majority of the neighborhood does not choose it (even when they had neighborhood preference) and there is not a large concentration of native spanish speakers nearby.
3. The school board mostly agreed with APS and requested that they make a direct announcement in hopes that they would lessen debate and angst. The school board was given two options for presenting this, they went with the most open and direct communication (as opposed to having them be options during the boundary revision). Postponing making key into a neighborhood school until 2020 or 2021 gives them time to figure out if there needs to be two neighborhood schools in the area, or if there is a better place for the immersion program.
4. The main concern both APS and the school board has is that the immersion program is too large for the current ASFS building. There were questions about how to build the building out as quickly as possible. Its interesting that building out asfs when it was a neighborhood school was never really discussed, but its being seriously considered since the building may house an option program. I think this speaks volumes to the commitment that APS has to maintaining the immersion program.
5. Most of the "Keep key on key" arguments were debunked by the memos they published. The swap was not recommended because lyon village is rich, but more because they didn't want to disrupt 3 other communities (that had apparently written in saying that they didn't want to move). There are only at most 13 native spanish speakers that are not provided bus service to key. The people who would most hurt from keeping the immersion program on key are the poorest kids in that neighborhood since the affordable housing planning units were the ones most likely to move. The only pocket of remotely walkable spanish speakers to key are in Woodbury park, which are currently bused and the added distance to asfs only adds 2 minutes to their bus ride. That planning unit is also within a mile walk of asfs, so parents would still be able to walk to school events if needed.
6. Both the key and asfs buildings are really old and not particularly desirable compared to discovery or fleet, or even long branch or taylor. ASFS has a dirt field that's about to be converted to artificial turf and sits on 66. The "fancy lab" isn't really any nicer than the art room -- I'm not really sure what money was spent on there, but it sure doesn't look like it cost that much. Key has quite a few classrooms without any windows. This entire thing just centers around where the buildings are located, nothing more.

Interesting that they are considering expanding the ASFS building. This is the first I've heard that. They completely renovated the building less than 15 years ago, so I'm surprised to hear that its a bit of dump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No way. Suggesting schools take a public park is a complete non-starter as PP suggested. There are places to acquire land but the County and APS can't work together to sharpen pencils let alone plan for more than 20 minutes in the future.

I think you are probably right, but this would be a little different because it would be taking a park and turning it into a school playground, which is kind of like a park.

Not to the senior citizens who are the powerful voting bloc you are going to antagonize in the process.

Are there a lot of senior citizens hanging out at the playground and the sprayground at Hayes Park?

Many senior citizens use the tennis court and walking path during the day, and they'd be pretty upset to lose access to it all day.

[Anonymous]

3. The school board mostly agreed with APS and requested that they make a direct announcement in hopes that they would lessen debate and angst. The school board was given two options for presenting this, they went with the most open and direct communication (as opposed to having them be options during the boundary revision). Postponing making key into a neighborhood school until 2020 or 2021 gives them time to figure out if there needs to be two neighborhood schools in the area, or if there is a better place for the immersion program.
4. The main concern both APS and the school board has is that the immersion program is too large for the current ASFS building. There were questions about how to build the building out as quickly as possible. Its interesting that building out asfs when it was a neighborhood school was never really discussed, but its being seriously considered since the building may house an option program. I think this speaks volumes to the commitment that APS has to maintaining the immersion program.

I hope you're right about number 3 (and that APS will actually look at the data gathered over the next couple of years and decide then whether to really do the swap or send Key somewhere else).

I think you are wrong about number 4. APS is never going to build out ASFS if Immersion goes there. There are 3 unused classrooms in that building that APS has refused to rehab because it's cost-prohibitive. If they weren't willing to do that for permanent seats, they are not going to do it for option seats. They are sending Key to ASFS to slowly die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

3. The school board mostly agreed with APS and requested that they make a direct announcement in hopes that they would lessen debate and angst. The school board was given two options for presenting this, they went with the most open and direct communication (as opposed to having them be options during the boundary revision). Postponing making key into a neighborhood school until 2020 or 2021 gives them time to figure out if there needs to be two neighborhood schools in the area, or if there is a better place for the immersion program.
4. The main concern both APS and the school board has is that the immersion program is too large for the current ASFS building. There were questions about how to build the building out as quickly as possible. Its interesting that building out asfs when it was a neighborhood school was never really discussed, but its being seriously considered since the building may house an option program. I think this speaks volumes to the commitment that APS has to maintaining the immersion program.

I hope you're right about number 3 (and that APS will actually look at the data gathered over the next couple of years and decide then whether to really do the swap or send Key somewhere else).

I think you are wrong about number 4. APS is never going to build out ASFS if Immersion goes there. There are 3 unused classrooms in that building that APS has refused to rehab because it's cost-prohibitive. If they weren't willing to do that for permanent seats, they are not going to do it for option seats. They are sending Key to ASFS to slowly die.

DP. While I agree with you that they are unlikely to build out ASFS for the immersion program, they are not sending the program there to die. Keeping the program to 600 kids instead of 700 will not kill it. Let's drop the histrionics, hmm?

[Anonymous]

There are 3 unused classrooms in that building that APS has refused to rehab because it's cost-prohibitive.

I can't understand how the classrooms can't be fixed up so they can be used. There must be something about them I don't understand.

[Anonymous]

Many senior citizens use the tennis court and walking path during the day, and they'd be pretty upset to lose access to it all day.

Just goes to show that sometimes I don't know what I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are 3 unused classrooms in that building that APS has refused to rehab because it's cost-prohibitive.

I can't understand how the classrooms can't be fixed up so they can be used. There must be something about them I don't understand.

They have to be dug out. Not trivial work. Suspect they knew they were swapping eventually and could just resize Immersion to fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

3. The school board mostly agreed with APS and requested that they make a direct announcement in hopes that they would lessen debate and angst. The school board was given two options for presenting this, they went with the most open and direct communication (as opposed to having them be options during the boundary revision). Postponing making key into a neighborhood school until 2020 or 2021 gives them time to figure out if there needs to be two neighborhood schools in the area, or if there is a better place for the immersion program.
4. The main concern both APS and the school board has is that the immersion program is too large for the current ASFS building. There were questions about how to build the building out as quickly as possible. Its interesting that building out asfs when it was a neighborhood school was never really discussed, but its being seriously considered since the building may house an option program. I think this speaks volumes to the commitment that APS has to maintaining the immersion program.

I hope you're right about number 3 (and that APS will actually look at the data gathered over the next couple of years and decide then whether to really do the swap or send Key somewhere else).

I think you are wrong about number 4. APS is never going to build out ASFS if Immersion goes there. There are 3 unused classrooms in that building that APS has refused to rehab because it's cost-prohibitive. If they weren't willing to do that for permanent seats, they are not going to do it for option seats. They are sending Key to ASFS to slowly die.

DP. While I agree with you that they are unlikely to build out ASFS for the immersion program, they are not sending the program there to die. Keeping the program to 600 kids instead of 700 will not kill it. Let's drop the histrionics, hmm?

Seriously, what is the terror for a smaller program — most parents prefer smaller schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are 3 unused classrooms in that building that APS has refused to rehab because it's cost-prohibitive.

I can't understand how the classrooms can't be fixed up so they can be used. There must be something about them I don't understand.

They have to be dug out. Not trivial work. Suspect they knew they were swapping eventually and could just resize Immersion to fit.

DP. What do you mean by dug out? I've never been in the building/