8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask why everyone is so hellbent on eliminating ATS? I don’t want to start another war about the lottery process, etc. I’m just confused that so many on this thread recommend eliminating it in favor of other option programs. Why should it be chopped instead of any other option program? It’s one of the most successful schools in the county. I agree that it’s formula should be replicated elsewhere so more people can benefit. Killing it outright has never made any sense to me.

I have been commenting on the elimination of ats not because I want it to happen, but because the school board has not included it in their IPP. I don’t want to waste time speculating whether ATS will stay or move, and where, when it probably won’t exist in a few years. Who knows, maybe they’ll keep it, but that doesn’t appear to be the case based on published IPP materials or recent work sessions.

But it will be replaced by IB. They’re not reducing the number of option schools, just redesigning one of them. It will still need a home.

Yes, but IB is something totally different. The school would no longer be ATS.

On a related note for those who haven’t been following the IPP process closely, it’s pay attention time. The SB is working with recommendations and considering a lot of changes from pk to 12. They are not working piecemeal a la the failed Key/ASFS swap, but looking holistically at the entire system. There is the possibility that there will be upper and lower elementaries, preschool classes will be shuffled around, option programs will be moved, changed or eliminated, Arlington tech may morph into early college or something else, and all sorts of other fun stuff. There are a lot of big changes potentially coming our way.

I just watched the work session. LS was the only person making any of the suggestions that PP mentions above (upper/lower, etc). My favorite part of the session was when Reid asked her about the swap, and she said "The swap doesn't make sense." Lololol. If it doesn't make sense today, how did it make any sense a year ago when it was announced? I wish I could have seen PM's face when she said that.

+1

It was the same work session last year where Murphy announced the swap as a done deal-- it was his decision and his decision alone. Would have been nice to see BK's face too-- she and a staff member went to ASFS last fall and suggested to all the angry parents that they could light candles as a way to get closure over losing their school.

It's amazing to me all the time and tax-payer resources that went into promoting the swap. I really hope it was PK's baby because otherwise someone needs to leave APS for being so inept and basically setting the whole location review process back a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's amazing to me all the time and tax-payer resources that went into promoting the swap. I really hope it was PK's baby because otherwise someone needs to leave APS for being so inept and basically setting the whole location review process back a year.

what real time or taxpayer resources went into this? I really think this was always the plan- and I think APS accomplished its goal. It has made it increasingly clear that Key immersion has to move- that site is needed. Asserting the swap, and that they would discuss it later, bought them time during the south arlington boundary process- which they needed. It also bought them time to continue to check projections and get closer to the opening of Reed. They need to do the Key immersion move along with the boundary process, otherwise there is no political desire for it. There will be more of a political will for it when the rest of the county sees how not moving Key will impact them personally.

So time- it was a win. Taxpayer resources? Really- APS didn't spend much 'promoting' the swap. All they really did was say they would talk about it later- then say they weren't going to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's amazing to me all the time and tax-payer resources that went into promoting the swap. I really hope it was PK's baby because otherwise someone needs to leave APS for being so inept and basically setting the whole location review process back a year.

what real time or taxpayer resources went into this? I really think this was always the plan- and I think APS accomplished its goal. It has made it increasingly clear that Key immersion has to move- that site is needed. Asserting the swap, and that they would discuss it later, bought them time during the south arlington boundary process- which they needed. It also bought them time to continue to check projections and get closer to the opening of Reed. They need to do the Key immersion move along with the boundary process, otherwise there is no political desire for it. There will be more of a political will for it when the rest of the county sees how not moving Key will impact them personally.

So time- it was a win. Taxpayer resources? Really- APS didn't spend much 'promoting' the swap. All they really did was say they would talk about it later- then say they weren't going to.

There was some key information that was not available at the time of the swap announcement - including the new student growth projections and the lottery information - that they probably had a good idea was true but didn't have the official numbers. Now it is very clear that both ASFS and Key need to be neighborhood to have any kind of reasonable boundaries and that there are not actually very many native speakers clamoring for entry to Key on Key. I totally agree it was a distraction technique so they could deal with Fleet boundaries without having to touch Key/Long Branch/ASFS/Taylor. Shady, of course, but effective.

[Anonymous]

I've seen the presentation and timeline for this year. I think someone posted a link in this thread.

Is the expectation that they will decide by January whether to move Key and if so, where to move it to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's amazing to me all the time and tax-payer resources that went into promoting the swap. I really hope it was PK's baby because otherwise someone needs to leave APS for being so inept and basically setting the whole location review process back a year.

what real time or taxpayer resources went into this? I really think this was always the plan- and I think APS accomplished its goal. It has made it increasingly clear that Key immersion has to move- that site is needed. Asserting the swap, and that they would discuss it later, bought them time during the south arlington boundary process- which they needed. It also bought them time to continue to check projections and get closer to the opening of Reed. They need to do the Key immersion move along with the boundary process, otherwise there is no political desire for it. There will be more of a political will for it when the rest of the county sees how not moving Key will impact them personally.

So time- it was a win. Taxpayer resources? Really- APS didn't spend much 'promoting' the swap. All they really did was say they would talk about it later- then say they weren't going to.

There was some key information that was not available at the time of the swap announcement - including the new student growth projections and the lottery information - that they probably had a good idea was true but didn't have the official numbers. Now it is very clear that both ASFS and Key need to be neighborhood to have any kind of reasonable boundaries and that there are not actually very many native speakers clamoring for entry to Key on Key. I totally agree it was a distraction technique so they could deal with Fleet boundaries without having to touch Key/Long Branch/ASFS/Taylor. Shady, of course, but effective.

Well if it was a distraction technique it was pretty effective at distracting the SB itself who had to deal with lots of parents questioning the decision. Better to have said nothing at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's amazing to me all the time and tax-payer resources that went into promoting the swap. I really hope it was PK's baby because otherwise someone needs to leave APS for being so inept and basically setting the whole location review process back a year.

what real time or taxpayer resources went into this? I really think this was always the plan- and I think APS accomplished its goal. It has made it increasingly clear that Key immersion has to move- that site is needed. Asserting the swap, and that they would discuss it later, bought them time during the south arlington boundary process- which they needed. It also bought them time to continue to check projections and get closer to the opening of Reed. They need to do the Key immersion move along with the boundary process, otherwise there is no political desire for it. There will be more of a political will for it when the rest of the county sees how not moving Key will impact them personally.

So time- it was a win. Taxpayer resources? Really- APS didn't spend much 'promoting' the swap. All they really did was say they would talk about it later- then say they weren't going to.

There was some key information that was not available at the time of the swap announcement - including the new student growth projections and the lottery information - that they probably had a good idea was true but didn't have the official numbers. Now it is very clear that both ASFS and Key need to be neighborhood to have any kind of reasonable boundaries and that there are not actually very many native speakers clamoring for entry to Key on Key. I totally agree it was a distraction technique so they could deal with Fleet boundaries without having to touch Key/Long Branch/ASFS/Taylor. Shady, of course, but effective.

Well if it was a distraction technique it was pretty effective at distracting the SB itself who had to deal with lots of parents questioning the decision. Better to have said nothing at all.

I don't know if this is even true though -- school board members came to the ASFS PTA once about the swap, and once to the Key PTA (I believe). They may have had people coming to office hours, but when I went for other reasons to office hours, the school board member I talked to said she hadn't seen anyone from ASFS all fall. Yes, it was a distraction technique, and it worked really well -- good for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's amazing to me all the time and tax-payer resources that went into promoting the swap. I really hope it was PK's baby because otherwise someone needs to leave APS for being so inept and basically setting the whole location review process back a year.

what real time or taxpayer resources went into this? I really think this was always the plan- and I think APS accomplished its goal. It has made it increasingly clear that Key immersion has to move- that site is needed. Asserting the swap, and that they would discuss it later, bought them time during the south arlington boundary process- which they needed. It also bought them time to continue to check projections and get closer to the opening of Reed. They need to do the Key immersion move along with the boundary process, otherwise there is no political desire for it. There will be more of a political will for it when the rest of the county sees how not moving Key will impact them personally.

So time- it was a win. Taxpayer resources? Really- APS didn't spend much 'promoting' the swap. All they really did was say they would talk about it later- then say they weren't going to.

There was some key information that was not available at the time of the swap announcement - including the new student growth projections and the lottery information - that they probably had a good idea was true but didn't have the official numbers. Now it is very clear that both ASFS and Key need to be neighborhood to have any kind of reasonable boundaries and that there are not actually very many native speakers clamoring for entry to Key on Key. I totally agree it was a distraction technique so they could deal with Fleet boundaries without having to touch Key/Long Branch/ASFS/Taylor. Shady, of course, but effective.

Well if it was a distraction technique it was pretty effective at distracting the SB itself who had to deal with lots of parents questioning the decision. Better to have said nothing at all.

I don't know if this is even true though -- school board members came to the ASFS PTA once about the swap, and once to the Key PTA (I believe). They may have had people coming to office hours, but when I went for other reasons to office hours, the school board member I talked to said she hadn't seen anyone from ASFS all fall. Yes, it was a distraction technique, and it worked really well -- good for them.

They had to say something. The ASFS parents who are in the walk zone, but not zoned to ASFS, had spent all summer lobbying the school board to draw the ASFS boundary as part of the South Arlington process that would include them in the ASFS zone. There had also been a group of parents lobbying to not include the walk zone. The ASFS fight threatened to overwhelm the South Arlington boundary process and really tie the hands of APS when they went to open Reed (b/c they try not to move a planning until more than once every 5 years.)

Announcing the swap meant that both the School Board and the staff could say 'thankyou for your comments, we will engage your further on this in January- for all of the Fall of 2018.'
Then come Jan 2019- they switched to 'thankyou for your comments, we think we need both sites as neighborhood- we will engage you more on boundaries soon.'
It's really a minimal resource expenditure for APS.
It also had the side benefit of causing the Key community to get really organized, and attempt to trot out as many spanish speaking neighbors to the Key site as they could advocating for immersion at Key. Despite this massive organization- they still can't fill their spanish speaking slots at that location.

I don't necessarily think it was fully planned out as a distraction. If both communities had been okay with it- they might have gone ahead with it b/c it would still have put APS in a better spot than it is with Key as immersion.

[Anonymous]

Where does H-B Woodlawn fit in the IPP Options list? I would guest "Democratic" but that is only listed for middle school. For high school, it would have to be either Early College or Hybrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where does H-B Woodlawn fit in the IPP Options list? I would guest "Democratic" but that is only listed for middle school. For high school, it would have to be either Early College or Hybrid. [/quote

My guess on this is that they are putting it there to indicate that it starts in middle school and it's some kind of oversight that "Democratic" does not extend to high school, but we will have to see............

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where does H-B Woodlawn fit in the IPP Options list? I would guest "Democratic" but that is only listed for middle school. For high school, it would have to be either Early College or Hybrid.

That was alarming to me at first (no kids at HB, fwiw), but looking at older materials the original chart was formatted such that there was no line between the HB/ democratic middle and high school columns. I would imagine that it was just a formatting flub when this new chart was drafted, but who knows. I’m surprised that no one caught it before it was published, if it is a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask why everyone is so hellbent on eliminating ATS? I don’t want to start another war about the lottery process, etc. I’m just confused that so many on this thread recommend eliminating it in favor of other option programs. Why should it be chopped instead of any other option program? It’s one of the most successful schools in the county. I agree that it’s formula should be replicated elsewhere so more people can benefit. Killing it outright has never made any sense to me.

I have been commenting on the elimination of ats not because I want it to happen, but because the school board has not included it in their IPP. I don’t want to waste time speculating whether ATS will stay or move, and where, when it probably won’t exist in a few years. Who knows, maybe they’ll keep it, but that doesn’t appear to be the case based on published IPP materials or recent work sessions.

But it will be replaced by IB. They’re not reducing the number of option schools, just redesigning one of them. It will still need a home.

Yes, but IB is something totally different. The school would no longer be ATS.

On a related note for those who haven’t been following the IPP process closely, it’s pay attention time. The SB is working with recommendations and considering a lot of changes from pk to 12. They are not working piecemeal a la the failed Key/ASFS swap, but looking holistically at the entire system. There is the possibility that there will be upper and lower elementaries, preschool classes will be shuffled around, option programs will be moved, changed or eliminated, Arlington tech may morph into early college or something else, and all sorts of other fun stuff. There are a lot of big changes potentially coming our way.

I just watched the work session. LS was the only person making any of the suggestions that PP mentions above (upper/lower, etc). My favorite part of the session was when Reid asked her about the swap, and she said "The swap doesn't make sense." Lololol. If it doesn't make sense today, how did it make any sense a year ago when it was announced? I wish I could have seen PM's face when she said that.

+1

It was the same work session last year where Murphy announced the swap as a done deal-- it was his decision and his decision alone. Would have been nice to see BK's face too-- she and a staff member went to ASFS last fall and suggested to all the angry parents that they could light candles as a way to get closure over losing their school.

It's amazing to me all the time and tax-payer resources that went into promoting the swap. I really hope it was PK's baby because otherwise someone needs to leave APS for being so inept and basically setting the whole location review process back a year.

Regardless of who originally came up with the idea of the Murphy-led swap, the SB was fully on-board with the idea. If they weren't, they could have overruled him. They chose not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well people are right that ATS is not magic. It’s just a self selected student body. That’s true. It’s also why it can’t be replicated in a non lottery program. So basically it takes kids destined to succeed then claims credit for their scores. Keep it or don’t. But don’t kid yourself that it has some secret sauce.

With that logic, all of the option schools should always be at the top performers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask why everyone is so hellbent on eliminating ATS? I don’t want to start another war about the lottery process, etc. I’m just confused that so many on this thread recommend eliminating it in favor of other option programs. Why should it be chopped instead of any other option program? It’s one of the most successful schools in the county. I agree that it’s formula should be replicated elsewhere so more people can benefit. Killing it outright has never made any sense to me.

Because it no longer is significantly different from other schools. The original purpose of closed classrooms is no longer missing from all the other schools.

I do believe there is higher expectation - for every student - and more discipline. But those things should be implemented in every school in Arlington, thereby eliminating any remaining uniqueness of ATS except for the self-selecting status seeking enrollment. And, as "traditional" as I am, even I think some of the ATS stuff is too much. They put way too much pressure on the students, making them feel they've failed if they don't pass advance every SOL. They use fear tactics (in middle school....) needlessly and to the harm of some student's anxiety. The ATS approach does not suit many of our special ed/ELL students well.

Standards Based Learning, and TN's presentations (and pictures) about the schools of the future show that neighborhood schools are going back to the more 'open classroom' model. No grades, no homework, less-formal designation of subject-matter 'mastery'. Not to mention the change in physical space. Read more about Standards Based Learning, which more and more neighborhood schools are incorporating. ATS does not fit the future neighborhood school model.

ATS has produced successful students consistently in all subjects across ALL demographics for many years. It is a shame that the value it brings to students iis discounted in the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well people are right that ATS is not magic. It’s just a self selected student body. That’s true. It’s also why it can’t be replicated in a non lottery program. So basically it takes kids destined to succeed then claims credit for their scores. Keep it or don’t. But don’t kid yourself that it has some secret sauce.

With that logic, all of the option schools should always be at the top performers.

This point has already been addressed in this thread. If you really care, go read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well people are right that ATS is not magic. It’s just a self selected student body. That’s true. It’s also why it can’t be replicated in a non lottery program. So basically it takes kids destined to succeed then claims credit for their scores. Keep it or don’t. But don’t kid yourself that it has some secret sauce.

With that logic, all of the option schools should always be at the top performers.

This point has already been addressed in this thread. If you really care, go read.

I’m not sure I buy the “other option schools are more or less neighborhood schools” argument. You’re still working with self-selecting parents who know enough about the system to opt for an alternative to the neighborhood school. Unless you’re saying that kids whose parents try for ATS are inherently more likely to succeed than other kids?