APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.

They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.

And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.

Right, but this community generated map definitively is a boundary change. APS’s current proposal contemplates a second step where boundaries will be adjusted. We can argue about whether it was wise to do it one two separate steps, but the fact is that’s what’s happening. So the six considerations WILL be considered before final boundaries are set. This community map is a proposed one-step process. So it should take the 6 considerations into account because there’s no step 2 where they will come into play.

Excellent, excellent point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prove the move!

The anti-movers' proposals are doing that just fine. That's where they actually ARE doing APS' job for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.

They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.

And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.

I understand that McKinley parents don’t have a sufficient grasp of the neighborhoods south of 50. Me neither. But that’s why we have professionals that do this for a living. You shouldn’t do a county-wide boundary process by splitting the county in half. The idea that this McKinley map can handle north arlington without any impact on the work that will be done in south arlington is absurd. It’s 26 square miles, and we have capacity issues in certain schools both north and south. Moves in one place impact other places, and there’s no magical line on 50 that diminishes those impacts.

+100
Whoever you are, will you run for school board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.

They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.

And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.

Thank you for this side of the argument. I am not on AEM, am a South Arlington parent at ATS, but stay involved in school decisions that affect my neighborhood. Does the counter proposal map analyze PUs that would be little islands feeding into different middle schools (like be only PU from a particular elementary school to go to a particular middle school) and does it analyze demographics, which may be hard for those in North Arlington to understand how vital that is for SA boundary considerations. Does it analyze any PUs that would have to move again after just being moved in the SA boundary adjustments?

Basically, I’m a little suspect of alternatives that affect the entire county put forth by very self-motivated people. That will always be a flawed and unfair proposal because their self-interest drives the proposal. From my limited interactions with the planning staff, while imperfect, I get the impression they are genuinely in it for all of our children. From what I know of parents, myself included, we are driven by concern for our own kids, our conveniences, and our property values.

You are wise to be suspect. No, the alternative proposals put forth by community members do not consider any of those things. They criticize staff for not considering demographics in their non-boundary proposal - but where have they and their concern for demographics been over the decades during boundary changes? And where will their demographics arguments be this fall? They criticize staff for omitting various factors, yet they themselves do not even attempt to consider the ones staff has:

long bus rides
transportation efficiency in ripple effects on other school boundaries
space for VPI classes, special education programs, etc.
balancing these and other factors - counterproposals merely balance enrollment with no other regards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prove the move!

The anti-movers' proposals are doing that just fine. That's where they actually ARE doing APS' job for them.

+1

The crazy maps they produce are justification for the moves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prove the move!

The anti-movers' proposals are doing that just fine. That's where they actually ARE doing APS' job for them.

+1

The crazy maps they produce are justification for the moves.

The Map people are like Flat Earthers, living in a world of denial. They should just move...hopefully to Fairfax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prove the move!

The anti-movers' proposals are doing that just fine. That's where they actually ARE doing APS' job for them.

+1

The crazy maps they produce are justification for the moves.

The Map people are like Flat Earthers, living in a world of denial. They should just move...hopefully to Fairfax.

seriously
anti-move parents: 'APS needs to listen to the community, we know better than you how to do your jobs.'
APS: 'we can't take your map seriously because you 1) disregard the need for pre-k seats, 2) move units that were just moved in the last boundary process, etc....
anti-move parents: 'IT's all APS's fault, we don't know how to do this- we are just amateurs doing this on our own time. But look, we made a bad map that ignored lots of important considerations- surely that shows that there are better maps out there. The fact that we ignored things shouldn't count against us because we don't know better.'
'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prove the move!

The anti-movers' proposals are doing that just fine. That's where they actually ARE doing APS' job for them.

+1

The crazy maps they produce are justification for the moves.

The Map people are like Flat Earthers, living in a world of denial. They should just move...hopefully to Fairfax.

seriously
anti-move parents: 'APS needs to listen to the community, we know better than you how to do your jobs.'
APS: 'we can't take your map seriously because you 1) disregard the need for pre-k seats, 2) move units that were just moved in the last boundary process, etc....
anti-move parents: 'IT's all APS's fault, we don't know how to do this- we are just amateurs doing this on our own time. But look, we made a bad map that ignored lots of important considerations- surely that shows that there are better maps out there. The fact that we ignored things shouldn't count against us because we don't know better.'
'

I love this.

[Anonymous]

The decision to move forward with obviously fatally flawed data in an attempt to show up staff was clumsy and childish at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prove the move!

The anti-movers' proposals are doing that just fine. That's where they actually ARE doing APS' job for them.

+1

The crazy maps they produce are justification for the moves.

The Map people are like Flat Earthers, living in a world of denial. They should just move...hopefully to Fairfax.

seriously
anti-move parents: 'APS needs to listen to the community, we know better than you how to do your jobs.'
APS: 'we can't take your map seriously because you 1) disregard the need for pre-k seats, 2) move units that were just moved in the last boundary process, etc....
anti-move parents: 'IT's all APS's fault, we don't know how to do this- we are just amateurs doing this on our own time. But look, we made a bad map that ignored lots of important considerations- surely that shows that there are better maps out there. The fact that we ignored things shouldn't count against us because we don't know better.'
'

I love this.

+100 Love the comment "this isn't our day job". Well why don't you let people for whom it IS their day job, do their job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.


They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.

And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.


I understand that McKinley parents don’t have a sufficient grasp of the neighborhoods south of 50. Me neither. But that’s why we have professionals that do this for a living. You shouldn’t do a county-wide boundary process by splitting the county in half. The idea that this McKinley map can handle north arlington without any impact on the work that will be done in south arlington is absurd. It’s 26 square miles, and we have capacity issues in certain schools both north and south. Moves in one place impact other places, and there’s no magical line on 50 that diminishes those impacts.

Here's the thing - any real consideration HAS to look at South Arlington. If Key stays option, they have too many kids in Rosslyn corridor. Long Branch's border has to move north to take some of them. Which means Fleet's border has to move north to take some of Lyon Park. If Fleet's border moves north, then that limits what can be done about demographics because the poverty is concentrated south and west. 50 isn't a magic line where Arlington stops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.


They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.

And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.


I understand that McKinley parents don’t have a sufficient grasp of the neighborhoods south of 50. Me neither. But that’s why we have professionals that do this for a living. You shouldn’t do a county-wide boundary process by splitting the county in half. The idea that this McKinley map can handle north arlington without any impact on the work that will be done in south arlington is absurd. It’s 26 square miles, and we have capacity issues in certain schools both north and south. Moves in one place impact other places, and there’s no magical line on 50 that diminishes those impacts.

Here's the thing - any real consideration HAS to look at South Arlington. If Key stays option, they have too many kids in Rosslyn corridor. Long Branch's border has to move north to take some of them. Which means Fleet's border has to move north to take some of Lyon Park. If Fleet's border moves north, then that limits what can be done about demographics because the poverty is concentrated south and west. 50 isn't a magic line where Arlington stops.

That's not what my realtor told me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The decision to move forward with obviously fatally flawed data in an attempt to show up staff was clumsy and childish at best.

They gave themselves “credit” for improving numbers in their scenario that they didn’t actually improve. Comment from AEM:

The accompanying Excel data is showing 1,882 kids moving. Is the 1,182 on this chart for students move a typo? Also the net change in walkers number (660) claims that this scenario creates 393 walkers at Reed and the APS scenario creates 0. You should really fill in a value for the APS scenario if you are going to compare. I'm not sure how Tuckahoe is gaining 134 walkers when this scenario only moves 35 kids, either.

So there are problems with the data itself, and with their interpretation and representation of the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to move forward with obviously fatally flawed data in an attempt to show up staff was clumsy and childish at best.

They gave themselves “credit” for improving numbers in their scenario that they didn’t actually improve. Comment from AEM:

The accompanying Excel data is showing 1,882 kids moving. Is the 1,182 on this chart for students move a typo? Also the net change in walkers number (660) claims that this scenario creates 393 walkers at Reed and the APS scenario creates 0. You should really fill in a value for the APS scenario if you are going to compare. I'm not sure how Tuckahoe is gaining 134 walkers when this scenario only moves 35 kids, either.

So there are problems with the data itself, and with their interpretation and representation of the data.

That AEM poster is doing God's work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to move forward with obviously fatally flawed data in an attempt to show up staff was clumsy and childish at best.

They gave themselves “credit” for improving numbers in their scenario that they didn’t actually improve. Comment from AEM:

The accompanying Excel data is showing 1,882 kids moving. Is the 1,182 on this chart for students move a typo? Also the net change in walkers number (660) claims that this scenario creates 393 walkers at Reed and the APS scenario creates 0. You should really fill in a value for the APS scenario if you are going to compare. I'm not sure how Tuckahoe is gaining 134 walkers when this scenario only moves 35 kids, either.

So there are problems with the data itself, and with their interpretation and representation of the data.

That AEM poster is doing God's work.

It’s called MATH.