APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro

[Anonymous]

They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

Lisa Stengel looks like she’s willing to stand up to pushback. Good for her. If staff or the SB backs down AGAIN in the face of people like McKrazy, that will be a real problem. The reason parents feel free to pull sh!t like this is that it has a history of working, WHICH IS NOT TO THE OVERALL GOOD. Enough already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

Lisa Stengel looks like she’s willing to stand up to pushback. Good for her. If staff or the SB backs down AGAIN in the face of people like McKrazy, that will be a real problem. The reason parents feel free to pull sh!t like this is that it has a history of working, WHICH IS NOT TO THE OVERALL GOOD. Enough already.

+100 Stand your ground. I'm glad they have come out with a clear, thought out proposal and said THIS is what we are proposing. Now let's hope the school board has their back too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.

I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.

If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

Lisa Stengel looks like she’s willing to stand up to pushback. Good for her. If staff or the SB backs down AGAIN in the face of people like McKrazy, that will be a real problem. The reason parents feel free to pull sh!t like this is that it has a history of working, WHICH IS NOT TO THE OVERALL GOOD. Enough already.

+100 Stand your ground. I'm glad they have come out with a clear, thought out proposal and said THIS is what we are proposing. Now let's hope the school board has their back too.

+1

If anyone has any valid points (& data to back it up) then sure, make that public. But ignore the hysterics.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know how last night's meeting between Kanninen and the McKinley PTA went?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

I don't see them caving to McKrazy, because McKrazy doesn't have any arguments to make. In other cases where communities got APS to change their minds, it's because they were able to point to data-based problems with a proposal that weren't about one community wanting to be untouchable but rather were objectively problematic. Most of what comes out of McKrazy's mouth is about how she doesn't want her kid to change schools. If they cave to McKrazy, they basically couldn't make any boundary changes on principle, because there will always be someone who doesn't want to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

If APS tries to put ATS at any other neighborhood school it will fight with a united front (PTA and all). McKinley is a divided school because most of the school can't wait to go to Reed. Since much of Ashlawn will be leaving that would be the easiest alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Tuckahoe couldn’t fit ATS. Would they shrink it? No K the first year?

Definitely would need to shrink. And MCK and Reed boundaries would travel eastward like a plague b/c so many seats.

The act of moving ATS (or any option school) will shrink it's current population. Not 100% of students from current location will go to new location (wherever that is). So that's not a fully valid argument. Tuckahoe should be discussed as Option 3.

ATS - Arlington Traditional School does not have a heavy option load from any given neighborhood school. 2018-19:
McKinley 58 = 11.03%
Ashlawn 53 = 10.08%
Barcroft 47 = 8.94%
Glebe 40 = 7.60%
Barret 36 = 6.84%

Key:
Arl Sci 271 = 39.79%
Taylor 90 = 13.22%
Long Branch 83 = 12.19%
Glebe 55 = 8.08%
Barret 49 = 7.20%

Claremont:
Abingdon 254 = 36% [massive transfer 489 out.]
Oakridge 88 = 13%
Carlin Springs 85 = 12%
Barcroft 80 = 11%
Randolph 56 = 8%

Old transfer reports used to have ethnicity on sending and receiving. Staff indicated they will focus the CIP on a specific area of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

The vast majority of SA kids that attend ATS are the UMC white people who don’t want to go to their neighborhood school. ATS’s diversity stats come from mostly their VPI kids. The worst part of moving ATS to McKinley is that the expansion of ATS would actually further the segregation of SA schools. The NA kids that attend ATS often applied to escape their overcrowded schools. Now that they won’t be overcrowded, not as many kids will apply - except they could get a flood of applicants from the 200+ kid in the McKinley walk zone. I predict if they move ATS to McKinley and expand it to 800 kids (likely McKinley currently houses w trailers) it could be detrimental the the SA neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

The vast majority of SA kids that attend ATS are the UMC white people who don’t want to go to their neighborhood school. ATS’s diversity stats come from mostly their VPI kids. The worst part of moving ATS to McKinley is that the expansion of ATS would actually further the segregation of SA schools. The NA kids that attend ATS often applied to escape their overcrowded schools. Now that they won’t be overcrowded, not as many kids will apply - except they could get a flood of applicants from the 200+ kid in the McKinley walk zone. I predict if they move ATS to McKinley and expand it to 800 kids (likely McKinley currently houses w trailers) it could be detrimental the the SA neighborhood schools.

What if they expanded exclusively with more VPI students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

If APS tries to put ATS at any other neighborhood school it will fight with a united front (PTA and all). McKinley is a divided school because most of the school can't wait to go to Reed. Since much of Ashlawn will be leaving that would be the easiest alternative.

Ashlawn's PTA will fight any proposals to move ATS there. While some Ashlawn kids will be leaving (mostly from the eastern tail) the group that is currently scheduled to stay has most of the really involved parents. The fact they have been relatively calm in this process so far doesn't mean they won't fight tooth and nail against proposals to eliminate the school. Especially if they only get picked because APS listened to Tuckahoe and McKinley parents.

If ATS is going to move, it should go to McKinley or Tuckahoe - those schools have big numbers of kids moving together to a brand new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

The vast majority of SA kids that attend ATS are the UMC white people who don’t want to go to their neighborhood school. ATS’s diversity stats come from mostly their VPI kids. The worst part of moving ATS to McKinley is that the expansion of ATS would actually further the segregation of SA schools. The NA kids that attend ATS often applied to escape their overcrowded schools. Now that they won’t be overcrowded, not as many kids will apply - except they could get a flood of applicants from the 200+ kid in the McKinley walk zone. I predict if they move ATS to McKinley and expand it to 800 kids (likely McKinley currently houses w trailers) it could be detrimental the the SA neighborhood schools.

What if they expanded exclusively with more VPI students?

Or conduct a lottery that provides seats by the home neighborhood school proportionate to the FR/L rate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

The vast majority of SA kids that attend ATS are the UMC white people who don’t want to go to their neighborhood school. ATS’s diversity stats come from mostly their VPI kids. The worst part of moving ATS to McKinley is that the expansion of ATS would actually further the segregation of SA schools. The NA kids that attend ATS often applied to escape their overcrowded schools. Now that they won’t be overcrowded, not as many kids will apply - except they could get a flood of applicants from the 200+ kid in the McKinley walk zone. I predict if they move ATS to McKinley and expand it to 800 kids (likely McKinley currently houses w trailers) it could be detrimental the the SA neighborhood schools.

Eh, I'm ok with it. Arlington County is actively choosing to concentrate poverty in a few locations. I would be really annoyed if I had people who were comfortably ensconced at a NA neighborhood school or one of the option schools telling me I have to send my kids to Barcroft/Randolph/Drew/etc. instead of deciding between neighborhood and choice schools. The people running their mouths the most about the importance of equity are not sending their kids to those high poverty schools.