the Key/ASFS building switch...

[Anonymous]

I think you are a troll. No one was “stunned” and the vast majority of people were happy going to key. Everyone agreed that two neighborhood schools was great because then the “science” program could stay intact and there would be new “new asfs” for the existing community.
The only ones fighting for the fixtures are the faculty. I have a good idea of who is goading them on. I get it on their part, it’s just sad that they have no loyalty to the students they teach or the neighborhoods that they have taught kids from for decades.
Long story short, the “science” curriculum is a sham. My now sixth grader did not gain an interest in science from attending asfs. My first grader never sang science songs last year. My fourth grader does not even know what the scientific method is. I’ve asked her.

This is definitely NOT true. They most certainly did not agree. If they had, you would have seen an actual position from the school. More accurately, they were dead set on having their cake and eating it too. Never was there an interest to compromise and figure out a solution that benefited the entire school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS is facing the potentially massive budget shortfall for next year (I’ve heard the number $43 million throw around, but can’t find a source for that). I don’t think anyone should be planning on funding for discretionary items like moving science labs any time soon.

We shouldn't be paying for maintaining them, either. Who pays for that maintenance now? APS or the PTA? It was not an APS-purchased lab, and APS should not have to maintain expensive equipment/facilities/materials that PTAs purchase for their specific school and other schools don't have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS is facing the potentially massive budget shortfall for next year (I’ve heard the number $43 million throw around, but can’t find a source for that). I don’t think anyone should be planning on funding for discretionary items like moving science labs any time soon.

Found the source for the $43 million number, in was in a PTA email on upcoming SB initiatives.

Same email says that first day enrollment across APS was 500 students less than projected. Most of that is probably at the kindergarten level; if kindergarten fell short of its projections by even 400, that class is 17.5% smaller than anticipated. If that's not a fluke and instead represents a turning of the tide, it has huge implications for boundaries and enrollment. Staff and SB are smart to delay making final decisions as long as possible to collect more data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no asfs program. It’s an elementary school with one hour of extra science a week.
Want to know what my kids did during that hour this week?
1 drew a picture of clouds and wrote a sentence about how cloud hold rain water.
The other measured pencils and toy cars using a ruler.
This is pretty demonstrative of what they do every week in science city.
Not really sure if that’s worth fighting for.

No one is really fighting for "science" program, most people are fighting not to be bused half-way across the county. That's the root of the Cherosslyn War -- Cherrydale wants a walkable at the expense of all the neighborhoods east of them, who have no neighborhood school at all. We really probably should just do long east-west boundaries, since that's how almost all NA elementary schools are configured anyways.

Not true-some of Cherrydale wants to walk to ASFS, but many are happy going to Taylor. And those that do want to walk to ASFS also believe Rosslyn should walk to school as well. That was going to happen when APS announced that both schools should be neighborhood schools. No one in Cherrydale ever advocated that Rosslyn shouldn't be able to walk or go to the Key building.

That's the one thing everyone keeps glossing over-- there doesn't have to be only one neighborhood school between Rosslyn and Cherrydale. APS could send Immersion somewhere else (and somewhere that makes more sense for the program) and then everyone would be happy-- except, of course, the parents at the school where Immersion ends up. But it makes no sense to have only one neighborhood school in the east while there are underpopulated schools in the west. APS doesn't have the guts to deal with that issue or those parents, though. It's just easier for them to dump on the people in the east.

I would disagree with this statement or at least think it needs to be clarified that the vocal parents at ASFS most certainly wanted the ASFS program at Key. I was at the May ASFS PTA meeting and parents were stunned when APS announced that there would be two neighborhood schools. No one from Rosslyn or who lives around the Key building were rejoicing. No one was saying, "wow, this is great news, we get to walk to school! No more long bus ride!" It was bitterness and sadness that they wouldn't be at ASFS anymore. They literally accused the teachers and faculty of not caring about their children when some of them said they wanted to stay with the building and the fixtures in the buildings that support their curriculum. The manta was, two schools would tear the community apart! But if 80% of ASFS was going to Key, then most of the community would move together and be together. So the message (at least last year) was that ASFS had to be moved at all costs, not that Rosslyn needed a shorter commute. Which is still evident this year-- if they weren't fighting for the science program, then why is there a demand that every fixture in the ASFS building be moved with the swap? Rosslyn could and should definitely advocate for a neighborhood school but they did so at the expense of current ASFS building when they lobbied that ASFS had to move with them. All of ASFS could have been on the same page about moving the immersion program and then everyone would have gotten a walkable school but the Rosslyn folks couldn't bear the thought that Cherrydale would get "their" school while they went to a different/new school. So all the strife at and between the parents at ASFS revolve around the program, the stuff inside the building and the faculty, not the commute. If it was just about the commute, then the two neighborhood schools would have been a relief or welcome news.

The irony is, APS won't move all that stuff. And even though most of the staff and faculty will probably make the transition, it won't be ASFS anymore, or the ASFS that everyone who currently attends ASFS knows. So Rosslyn is going to end up pretty much in the same position if they had just embraced APS' announcement that there would be two neighborhood schools instead of fighting it.

I live in LV but have lots of friends in Rosslyn. Their only concern was losing the friends and community from the west end of the boundary. So two neighborhood schools make a lot of sense. But where would immersion land? That’s the problem. Once Reed is online it will offer capacity, and maybe a destination for an option school. Hence the swap and delay to 2021 — Reed completion date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think you are a troll. No one was “stunned” and the vast majority of people were happy going to key. Everyone agreed that two neighborhood schools was great because then the “science” program could stay intact and there would be new “new asfs” for the existing community.
The only ones fighting for the fixtures are the faculty. I have a good idea of who is goading them on. I get it on their part, it’s just sad that they have no loyalty to the students they teach or the neighborhoods that they have taught kids from for decades.
Long story short, the “science” curriculum is a sham. My now sixth grader did not gain an interest in science from attending asfs. My first grader never sang science songs last year. My fourth grader does not even know what the scientific method is. I’ve asked her.

Okay I’ll be waiting for the Rosslyn folks to announce their support of two neighborhood schools then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you are a troll. No one was “stunned” and the vast majority of people were happy going to key. Everyone agreed that two neighborhood schools was great because then the “science” program could stay intact and there would be new “new asfs” for the existing community.
The only ones fighting for the fixtures are the faculty. I have a good idea of who is goading them on. I get it on their part, it’s just sad that they have no loyalty to the students they teach or the neighborhoods that they have taught kids from for decades.
Long story short, the “science” curriculum is a sham. My now sixth grader did not gain an interest in science from attending asfs. My first grader never sang science songs last year. My fourth grader does not even know what the scientific method is. I’ve asked her.

Okay I’ll be waiting for the Rosslyn folks to announce their support of two neighborhood schools then.

Yes, it will be so nice to see Rosslyn come out and support the 20% of the school that will not be able to attend the new ASFS. No reason now for them not to advocate for Immersion going elsewhere and letting old ASFS becoming another neighborhood school. What did the trolls who wanted the ASFS name stripped from the school when it was staying put want to call it? Hayes Elementary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no asfs program. It’s an elementary school with one hour of extra science a week.
Want to know what my kids did during that hour this week?
1 drew a picture of clouds and wrote a sentence about how cloud hold rain water.
The other measured pencils and toy cars using a ruler.
This is pretty demonstrative of what they do every week in science city.
Not really sure if that’s worth fighting for.

No one is really fighting for "science" program, most people are fighting not to be bused half-way across the county. That's the root of the Cherosslyn War -- Cherrydale wants a walkable at the expense of all the neighborhoods east of them, who have no neighborhood school at all. We really probably should just do long east-west boundaries, since that's how almost all NA elementary schools are configured anyways.

Not true-some of Cherrydale wants to walk to ASFS, but many are happy going to Taylor. And those that do want to walk to ASFS also believe Rosslyn should walk to school as well. That was going to happen when APS announced that both schools should be neighborhood schools. No one in Cherrydale ever advocated that Rosslyn shouldn't be able to walk or go to the Key building.

That's the one thing everyone keeps glossing over-- there doesn't have to be only one neighborhood school between Rosslyn and Cherrydale. APS could send Immersion somewhere else (and somewhere that makes more sense for the program) and then everyone would be happy-- except, of course, the parents at the school where Immersion ends up. But it makes no sense to have only one neighborhood school in the east while there are underpopulated schools in the west. APS doesn't have the guts to deal with that issue or those parents, though. It's just easier for them to dump on the people in the east.

I would disagree with this statement or at least think it needs to be clarified that the vocal parents at ASFS most certainly wanted the ASFS program at Key. I was at the May ASFS PTA meeting and parents were stunned when APS announced that there would be two neighborhood schools. No one from Rosslyn or who lives around the Key building were rejoicing. No one was saying, "wow, this is great news, we get to walk to school! No more long bus ride!" It was bitterness and sadness that they wouldn't be at ASFS anymore. They literally accused the teachers and faculty of not caring about their children when some of them said they wanted to stay with the building and the fixtures in the buildings that support their curriculum. The manta was, two schools would tear the community apart! But if 80% of ASFS was going to Key, then most of the community would move together and be together. So the message (at least last year) was that ASFS had to be moved at all costs, not that Rosslyn needed a shorter commute. Which is still evident this year-- if they weren't fighting for the science program, then why is there a demand that every fixture in the ASFS building be moved with the swap? Rosslyn could and should definitely advocate for a neighborhood school but they did so at the expense of current ASFS building when they lobbied that ASFS had to move with them. All of ASFS could have been on the same page about moving the immersion program and then everyone would have gotten a walkable school but the Rosslyn folks couldn't bear the thought that Cherrydale would get "their" school while they went to a different/new school. So all the strife at and between the parents at ASFS revolve around the program, the stuff inside the building and the faculty, not the commute. If it was just about the commute, then the two neighborhood schools would have been a relief or welcome news.

The irony is, APS won't move all that stuff. And even though most of the staff and faculty will probably make the transition, it won't be ASFS anymore, or the ASFS that everyone who currently attends ASFS knows. So Rosslyn is going to end up pretty much in the same position if they had just embraced APS' announcement that there would be two neighborhood schools instead of fighting it.

APS never, I repeat never, announced two neighborhood schools. Did not. If that's what you heard, you heard wrong.

+1. The closest they came was when they were doing the location review last spring and didn't put either Key or ASFS on the short list of school sites that were considered strong candidates for option programs. That was in no way an announcement that both would be neighborhood schools, making no changes was always a possibility all through that process.

+1

That PP is writing fiction. APS never announced two neighborhood schools. Troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS is facing the potentially massive budget shortfall for next year (I’ve heard the number $43 million throw around, but can’t find a source for that). I don’t think anyone should be planning on funding for discretionary items like moving science labs any time soon.

We shouldn't be paying for maintaining them, either. Who pays for that maintenance now? APS or the PTA? It was not an APS-purchased lab, and APS should not have to maintain expensive equipment/facilities/materials that PTAs purchase for their specific school and other schools don't have.

Maintain what? A bunch of storage containers and murals? It's not full of complex chemistry equipment and particle accelerators.

[Anonymous]

APS never, I repeat never, announced two neighborhood schools. Did not. If that's what you heard, you heard wrong.

Pages 22 and 23 of the April 30th Analysis released by APS, identified potential sites for option schools and neighborhood schools and specifically noted that Key was a potential neighborhood site because it was “needed for growth in Ballston-Rosslyn Corridor” and that “ASFS continues to be a neighborhood school.”

Neither school was included as a potential option school site by APS at that time.

So was it a done deal? No, but APS definitely announced (at that time) they thought two neighborhood schools were needed.

Of course, on May 17th, APS did announce that it was “suspend[ing] plans to consider moving any Elementary Neighborhood or Option Schools in Sept. 2019 [but] . . . [m]ay need to revisit this as we prepare for Reed in 2021.”

And then announced on July 26th that, “The Falll 2018 Elementary Boundary Process will involve elementary students beginning in the 2019-20 school year from the attendance zones of the following schools: . . . Arlington Science Focus (ASFS) . . . . “

But yet, on August 13th, APS sends a very detailed memo to the SB recommending that ASFS’ boundaries NOT be changed, but that there should be a swap between buildings.

What happened in those 18 days between July 26th and August 13th that made APS so drastically change its mind? My bet? Nothing. It would have taken months for some low-level APS employee to gin up a 10 page detailed report and analysis on the issue, plus all the edits and re-writes. Clearly APS was working on the swap for a long time but sending misleading messages to quell the Key community (who were lulled into a false sense of security since consideration for moving schools had been suspended) and the community around ASFS who wanted a neighborhood school (who were lulled into a false sense of security since ASFS was clearly getting all new boundaries in 2019).

Is it legit for APS to have come out and said, “Despite initial hopes to draw new boundaries for ASFS in the Fall of 2019, we need time to collect more accurate data and reexamine the location of the Key Immersion program and will therefore be considering moving ASFS to the Key building as part of the 2020 boundary process in anticipation of opening Reed in 2021”— absolutely. That would have been fair, transparent, and logical to wait to collect data and then reassess in two years.

But that’s not what APS did. APS basically said we’re doing this to the public while covertly pushing a different agenda to the SB. To quote a PP, that is tacky as hell.

[Anonymous]

^ Short version: APS never announced that both key and ASFS were going to be neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

APS never, I repeat never, announced two neighborhood schools. Did not. If that's what you heard, you heard wrong.

Pages 22 and 23 of the April 30th Analysis released by APS, identified potential sites for option schools and neighborhood schools and specifically noted that Key was a potential neighborhood site because it was “needed for growth in Ballston-Rosslyn Corridor” and that “ASFS continues to be a neighborhood school.”

Neither school was included as a potential option school site by APS at that time.

So was it a done deal? No, but APS definitely announced (at that time) they thought two neighborhood schools were needed.

Of course, on May 17th, APS did announce that it was “suspend[ing] plans to consider moving any Elementary Neighborhood or Option Schools in Sept. 2019 [but] . . . [m]ay need to revisit this as we prepare for Reed in 2021.”

And then announced on July 26th that, “The Falll 2018 Elementary Boundary Process will involve elementary students beginning in the 2019-20 school year from the attendance zones of the following schools: . . . Arlington Science Focus (ASFS) . . . . “

But yet, on August 13th, APS sends a very detailed memo to the SB recommending that ASFS’ boundaries NOT be changed, but that there should be a swap between buildings.

What happened in those 18 days between July 26th and August 13th that made APS so drastically change its mind? My bet? Nothing. It would have taken months for some low-level APS employee to gin up a 10 page detailed report and analysis on the issue, plus all the edits and re-writes. Clearly APS was working on the swap for a long time but sending misleading messages to quell the Key community (who were lulled into a false sense of security since consideration for moving schools had been suspended) and the community around ASFS who wanted a neighborhood school (who were lulled into a false sense of security since ASFS was clearly getting all new boundaries in 2019).

Is it legit for APS to have come out and said, “Despite initial hopes to draw new boundaries for ASFS in the Fall of 2019, we need time to collect more accurate data and reexamine the location of the Key Immersion program and will therefore be considering moving ASFS to the Key building as part of the 2020 boundary process in anticipation of opening Reed in 2021”— absolutely. That would have been fair, transparent, and logical to wait to collect data and then reassess in two years.

But that’s not what APS did. APS basically said we’re doing this to the public while covertly pushing a different agenda to the SB. To quote a PP, that is tacky as hell.

Could be the enrollment numbers discussed above. This past spring they were operating based on a certain set of projections. As summer wore on and 500 of those students didn’t materialize, they may have realized they needed more time to figure out if that was a one-off or the beginning of a more substantial change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

APS never, I repeat never, announced two neighborhood schools. Did not. If that's what you heard, you heard wrong.

Pages 22 and 23 of the April 30th Analysis released by APS, identified potential sites for option schools and neighborhood schools and specifically noted that Key was a potential neighborhood site because it was “needed for growth in Ballston-Rosslyn Corridor” and that “ASFS continues to be a neighborhood school.”

Neither school was included as a potential option school site by APS at that time.

So was it a done deal? No, but APS definitely announced (at that time) they thought two neighborhood schools were needed.

Of course, on May 17th, APS did announce that it was “suspend[ing] plans to consider moving any Elementary Neighborhood or Option Schools in Sept. 2019 [but] . . . [m]ay need to revisit this as we prepare for Reed in 2021.”

And then announced on July 26th that, “The Falll 2018 Elementary Boundary Process will involve elementary students beginning in the 2019-20 school year from the attendance zones of the following schools: . . . Arlington Science Focus (ASFS) . . . . “

But yet, on August 13th, APS sends a very detailed memo to the SB recommending that ASFS’ boundaries NOT be changed, but that there should be a swap between buildings.

What happened in those 18 days between July 26th and August 13th that made APS so drastically change its mind? My bet? Nothing. It would have taken months for some low-level APS employee to gin up a 10 page detailed report and analysis on the issue, plus all the edits and re-writes. Clearly APS was working on the swap for a long time but sending misleading messages to quell the Key community (who were lulled into a false sense of security since consideration for moving schools had been suspended) and the community around ASFS who wanted a neighborhood school (who were lulled into a false sense of security since ASFS was clearly getting all new boundaries in 2019).

Is it legit for APS to have come out and said, “Despite initial hopes to draw new boundaries for ASFS in the Fall of 2019, we need time to collect more accurate data and reexamine the location of the Key Immersion program and will therefore be considering moving ASFS to the Key building as part of the 2020 boundary process in anticipation of opening Reed in 2021”— absolutely. That would have been fair, transparent, and logical to wait to collect data and then reassess in two years.

But that’s not what APS did. APS basically said we’re doing this to the public while covertly pushing a different agenda to the SB. To quote a PP, that is tacky as hell.

+1 spot on
tacky as hell, APS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Short version: APS never announced that both key and ASFS were going to be neighborhood schools.

Short version: it doesn't matter what APS says because half of what they say is a lie (you can't trust anything they say) and the the other half is completely ignorant and short sighted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no asfs program. It’s an elementary school with one hour of extra science a week.
Want to know what my kids did during that hour this week?
1 drew a picture of clouds and wrote a sentence about how cloud hold rain water.
The other measured pencils and toy cars using a ruler.
This is pretty demonstrative of what they do every week in science city.
Not really sure if that’s worth fighting for.

No one is really fighting for "science" program, most people are fighting not to be bused half-way across the county. That's the root of the Cherosslyn War -- Cherrydale wants a walkable at the expense of all the neighborhoods east of them, who have no neighborhood school at all. We really probably should just do long east-west boundaries, since that's how almost all NA elementary schools are configured anyways.

Not true-some of Cherrydale wants to walk to ASFS, but many are happy going to Taylor. And those that do want to walk to ASFS also believe Rosslyn should walk to school as well. That was going to happen when APS announced that both schools should be neighborhood schools. No one in Cherrydale ever advocated that Rosslyn shouldn't be able to walk or go to the Key building.

That's the one thing everyone keeps glossing over-- there doesn't have to be only one neighborhood school between Rosslyn and Cherrydale. APS could send Immersion somewhere else (and somewhere that makes more sense for the program) and then everyone would be happy-- except, of course, the parents at the school where Immersion ends up. But it makes no sense to have only one neighborhood school in the east while there are underpopulated schools in the west. APS doesn't have the guts to deal with that issue or those parents, though. It's just easier for them to dump on the people in the east.

I want to see September enrollment numbers before I pass judgment on anything, because I wonder if APS is seeing shifts we’re not aware of yet (because they have the data and we don’t). Yes, the county as a whole is growing and some schools started with more students than projected, but other schools started with fewer, especially in the kindergarten numbers.

+1

I think it was smart to wait for enrollment numbers. They may help support the need for two neighborhood schools (or not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

APS never, I repeat never, announced two neighborhood schools. Did not. If that's what you heard, you heard wrong.

Pages 22 and 23 of the April 30th Analysis released by APS, identified potential sites for option schools and neighborhood schools and specifically noted that Key was a potential neighborhood site because it was “needed for growth in Ballston-Rosslyn Corridor” and that “ASFS continues to be a neighborhood school.”

Neither school was included as a potential option school site by APS at that time.

So was it a done deal? No, but APS definitely announced (at that time) they thought two neighborhood schools were needed.

Of course, on May 17th, APS did announce that it was “suspend[ing] plans to consider moving any Elementary Neighborhood or Option Schools in Sept. 2019 [but] . . . [m]ay need to revisit this as we prepare for Reed in 2021.”

And then announced on July 26th that, “The Falll 2018 Elementary Boundary Process will involve elementary students beginning in the 2019-20 school year from the attendance zones of the following schools: . . . Arlington Science Focus (ASFS) . . . . “

But yet, on August 13th, APS sends a very detailed memo to the SB recommending that ASFS’ boundaries NOT be changed, but that there should be a swap between buildings.

What happened in those 18 days between July 26th and August 13th that made APS so drastically change its mind? My bet? Nothing. It would have taken months for some low-level APS employee to gin up a 10 page detailed report and analysis on the issue, plus all the edits and re-writes. Clearly APS was working on the swap for a long time but sending misleading messages to quell the Key community (who were lulled into a false sense of security since consideration for moving schools had been suspended) and the community around ASFS who wanted a neighborhood school (who were lulled into a false sense of security since ASFS was clearly getting all new boundaries in 2019).

Is it legit for APS to have come out and said, “Despite initial hopes to draw new boundaries for ASFS in the Fall of 2019, we need time to collect more accurate data and reexamine the location of the Key Immersion program and will therefore be considering moving ASFS to the Key building as part of the 2020 boundary process in anticipation of opening Reed in 2021”— absolutely. That would have been fair, transparent, and logical to wait to collect data and then reassess in two years.

But that’s not what APS did. APS basically said we’re doing this to the public while covertly pushing a different agenda to the SB. To quote a PP, that is tacky as hell.

Could be the enrollment numbers discussed above. This past spring they were operating based on a certain set of projections. As summer wore on and 500 of those students didn’t materialize, they may have realized they needed more time to figure out if that was a one-off or the beginning of a more substantial change.

We needed two neighborhood schools in that area based on last years enrollment so the fact that the rate of growth was short of their expectation does not change this going in assumption. No more data is needed. We still have more students in the entire system than we have seats - even if very unbalanced.