the Key/ASFS building switch...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This ^ they projected the system would grow by 1,147 students and instead it grew by roughly 600 ... and before those 600 we already did not have enough seats in Arlington as a whole and definitely not in the Orange Line Corridor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So let’s say a school that is currently over capacity had an incoming kindergarten class that was 75% of the prior year’s kindergarten class and 70% of what the class was projected to be. Do you not think that’s something APS should look into further before making decisions in case the school is going to end up at/under capacity in five years anyway? Because that’s the case (with numbers rounded) at at least one North Arlington elementary this fall.

[Anonymous]

If there is any school in NA less than 100% it needs to be strongly considered for an Option School location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So let’s say a school that is currently over capacity had an incoming kindergarten class that was 75% of the prior year’s kindergarten class and 70% of what the class was projected to be. Do you not think that’s something APS should look into further before making decisions in case the school is going to end up at/under capacity in five years anyway? Because that’s the case (with numbers rounded) at at least one North Arlington elementary this fall.

Which school are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So let’s say a school that is currently over capacity had an incoming kindergarten class that was 75% of the prior year’s kindergarten class and 70% of what the class was projected to be. Do you not think that’s something APS should look into further before making decisions in case the school is going to end up at/under capacity in five years anyway? Because that’s the case (with numbers rounded) at at least one North Arlington elementary this fall.

Which school are you referring to?

I’m not sharing that because it will just stir up a new round of drama and people will start beating down the staff’s door about where they think Key should be moved based on something they heard on a DCUM when we’re not even to that part of the process yet. When the 9/30 enrollment data is released next month, you can see for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So let’s say a school that is currently over capacity had an incoming kindergarten class that was 75% of the prior year’s kindergarten class and 70% of what the class was projected to be. Do you not think that’s something APS should look into further before making decisions in case the school is going to end up at/under capacity in five years anyway? Because that’s the case (with numbers rounded) at at least one North Arlington elementary this fall.

Which school are you referring to?

I’m not sharing that because it will just stir up a new round of drama and people will start beating down the staff’s door about where they think Key should be moved based on something they heard on a DCUM when we’re not even to that part of the process yet. When the 9/30 enrollment data is released next month, you can see for yourself.

Not sure how this is relevant to this thread because it's not the case at either Science Focus or Key. Next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So let’s say a school that is currently over capacity had an incoming kindergarten class that was 75% of the prior year’s kindergarten class and 70% of what the class was projected to be. Do you not think that’s something APS should look into further before making decisions in case the school is going to end up at/under capacity in five years anyway? Because that’s the case (with numbers rounded) at at least one North Arlington elementary this fall.

Which school are you referring to?

I’m not sharing that because it will just stir up a new round of drama and people will start beating down the staff’s door about where they think Key should be moved based on something they heard on a DCUM when we’re not even to that part of the process yet. When the 9/30 enrollment data is released next month, you can see for yourself.

Not sure how this is relevant to this thread because it's not the case at either Science Focus or Key. Next.

It would if it were one of the adjacent schools that could potentially pick up some planning units from Key (as neighborhood) and let immersion stay at the ASFS site. It’s also relevant to the issue of where Key should go if it’s one of the schools adjacent to the Reed site.

[Anonymous]

Yep, you're right! Doesn't matter where Key goes so guess we'll just move it to under-enrolled Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So let’s say a school that is currently over capacity had an incoming kindergarten class that was 75% of the prior year’s kindergarten class and 70% of what the class was projected to be. Do you not think that’s something APS should look into further before making decisions in case the school is going to end up at/under capacity in five years anyway? Because that’s the case (with numbers rounded) at at least one North Arlington elementary this fall.

Which school are you referring to?

I’m not sharing that because it will just stir up a new round of drama and people will start beating down the staff’s door about where they think Key should be moved based on something they heard on a DCUM when we’re not even to that part of the process yet. When the 9/30 enrollment data is released next month, you can see for yourself.

Not sure how this is relevant to this thread because it's not the case at either Science Focus or Key. Next.

It would if it were one of the adjacent schools that could potentially pick up some planning units from Key (as neighborhood) and let immersion stay at the ASFS site. It’s also relevant to the issue of where Key should go if it’s one of the schools adjacent to the Reed site.

And then you circle around to subjecting the most diverse student population to the longest bus ride when moved from ASFS to Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So let’s say a school that is currently over capacity had an incoming kindergarten class that was 75% of the prior year’s kindergarten class and 70% of what the class was projected to be. Do you not think that’s something APS should look into further before making decisions in case the school is going to end up at/under capacity in five years anyway? Because that’s the case (with numbers rounded) at at least one North Arlington elementary this fall.

Which school are you referring to?

I’m not sharing that because it will just stir up a new round of drama and people will start beating down the staff’s door about where they think Key should be moved based on something they heard on a DCUM when we’re not even to that part of the process yet. When the 9/30 enrollment data is released next month, you can see for yourself.

Not sure how this is relevant to this thread because it's not the case at either Science Focus or Key. Next.

It would if it were one of the adjacent schools that could potentially pick up some planning units from Key (as neighborhood) and let immersion stay at the ASFS site. It’s also relevant to the issue of where Key should go if it’s one of the schools adjacent to the Reed site.

And then you circle around to subjecting the most diverse student population to the longest bus ride when moved from ASFS to Taylor.

How about you give up your persecution complex for five seconds and read what's actually written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So let’s say a school that is currently over capacity had an incoming kindergarten class that was 75% of the prior year’s kindergarten class and 70% of what the class was projected to be. Do you not think that’s something APS should look into further before making decisions in case the school is going to end up at/under capacity in five years anyway? Because that’s the case (with numbers rounded) at at least one North Arlington elementary this fall.

Which school are you referring to?

I’m not sharing that because it will just stir up a new round of drama and people will start beating down the staff’s door about where they think Key should be moved based on something they heard on a DCUM when we’re not even to that part of the process yet. When the 9/30 enrollment data is released next month, you can see for yourself.

Not sure how this is relevant to this thread because it's not the case at either Science Focus or Key. Next.

It would if it were one of the adjacent schools that could potentially pick up some planning units from Key (as neighborhood) and let immersion stay at the ASFS site. It’s also relevant to the issue of where Key should go if it’s one of the schools adjacent to the Reed site.

And then you circle around to subjecting the most diverse student population to the longest bus ride when moved from ASFS to Taylor.

How about you give up your persecution complex for five seconds and read what's actually written.

So it wasn’t suggesting busing units from ASFS to Taylor? I guess for adjacent units you could mean expanding the Taylor zone east in Lyon Village — that would be equitable and if that was the suggestion, it would be appropriate. Problem would be in 3 years when capacity changes, they couldn’t move those PUs again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So let’s say a school that is currently over capacity had an incoming kindergarten class that was 75% of the prior year’s kindergarten class and 70% of what the class was projected to be. Do you not think that’s something APS should look into further before making decisions in case the school is going to end up at/under capacity in five years anyway? Because that’s the case (with numbers rounded) at at least one North Arlington elementary this fall.

Which school are you referring to?

I’m not sharing that because it will just stir up a new round of drama and people will start beating down the staff’s door about where they think Key should be moved based on something they heard on a DCUM when we’re not even to that part of the process yet. When the 9/30 enrollment data is released next month, you can see for yourself.

Not sure how this is relevant to this thread because it's not the case at either Science Focus or Key. Next.

It would if it were one of the adjacent schools that could potentially pick up some planning units from Key (as neighborhood) and let immersion stay at the ASFS site. It’s also relevant to the issue of where Key should go if it’s one of the schools adjacent to the Reed site.

And then you circle around to subjecting the most diverse student population to the longest bus ride when moved from ASFS to Taylor.

How about you give up your persecution complex for five seconds and read what's actually written.

So it wasn’t suggesting busing units from ASFS to Taylor? I guess for adjacent units you could mean expanding the Taylor zone east in Lyon Village — that would be equitable and if that was the suggestion, it would be appropriate. Problem would be in 3 years when capacity changes, they couldn’t move those PUs again.

It said Key would be neighborhood, so that "most diverse student population" (which it's not and you look like a jackass when you say it) would presumably go to Key, and it would be the units closer to ASFS that might get bused elsewhere (not necessarily Taylor).

[Anonymous]

Is the mystery school McKinley?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the mystery school McKinley?

McKinley has 6 k classes. I’m sure it’s Nottingham which has only 3

[Anonymous]

Ooh. They only had enough for 3 this year? Definitely is Nottingham then.