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

[Anonymous]

If the SB undermines staff again and pulls some sort of last minute crazy change to Ashlawn or Tuckahoe staff should quit en masse. Enough already. Why have a planning staff if you never take their recommendation? Just have a screaming contest and see who yells louder. Though I’m pretty sure Ashlawn and Tuckahoe have healthy lungs.

[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.

Where do you think the VPI students are coming from?

[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.

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.

I don’t understand why so many parents are so tied to a building.

We are likely going to change schools in all scenarios. My kids will be fine. All of the schools around us are fine. They will have some friends move with them and make more at the new school.

I don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the SB undermines staff again and pulls some sort of last minute crazy change to Ashlawn or Tuckahoe staff should quit en masse. Enough already. Why have a planning staff if you never take their recommendation? Just have a screaming contest and see who yells louder. Though I’m pretty sure Ashlawn and Tuckahoe have healthy lungs.

I think the SB will be hard-pressed to undermine the staff given that they're in the middle of a superintendent search. Any good candidate is going to look at this boundary process as Exhibit A for how the SB works with its superintendent and staff. If anything, I think the SB will be more deferential to the staff rather than less this time around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don’t understand why so many parents are so tied to a building.

We are likely going to change schools in all scenarios. My kids will be fine. All of the schools around us are fine. They will have some friends move with them and make more at the new school.

I don’t get it.

Some people have better coping skills than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the SB undermines staff again and pulls some sort of last minute crazy change to Ashlawn or Tuckahoe staff should quit en masse. Enough already. Why have a planning staff if you never take their recommendation? Just have a screaming contest and see who yells louder. Though I’m pretty sure Ashlawn and Tuckahoe have healthy lungs.

I think the SB will be hard-pressed to undermine the staff given that they're in the middle of a superintendent search. Any good candidate is going to look at this boundary process as Exhibit A for how the SB works with its superintendent and staff. If anything, I think the SB will be more deferential to the staff rather than less this time around.

That’s a good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Right! K lottery should have a FR/L preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the SB undermines staff again and pulls some sort of last minute crazy change to Ashlawn or Tuckahoe staff should quit en masse. Enough already. Why have a planning staff if you never take their recommendation? Just have a screaming contest and see who yells louder. Though I’m pretty sure Ashlawn and Tuckahoe have healthy lungs.

I think the SB will be hard-pressed to undermine the staff given that they're in the middle of a superintendent search. Any good candidate is going to look at this boundary process as Exhibit A for how the SB works with its superintendent and staff. If anything, I think the SB will be more deferential to the staff rather than less this time around.

That’s a good point.

+1 APS parents are a hard enough population to deal with. Who would take them on knowing they wouldn't have school board support for difficult decisions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still co

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.

Where do you think the VPI students are coming from?

Do the VPI kids get to stay for K-5? Or do they go back to their neighborhood school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

VPI is a more effective tool because it’s specifically targeted. If you just open more seats for high poverty neighborhood school zones, it doesn’t follow that those who’d apply would be the lower income families. If ATS grows, the VPI slots should grow proportionately. And then maybe for 1-5 lottery slots they’d need a targeted policy to favor students eligible for fr/l who didn’t win the K or VPI lotteries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still co

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.

Where do you think the VPI students are coming from?

Do the VPI kids get to stay for K-5? Or do they go back to their neighborhood school?

VPI kids stay for 1-5. In the past, they've had as many as 32/96 spots reserved in 1st grade for VPI. Then siblings of VPI kids also get preference after that (with all the other siblings), then it opens to the general populace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

VPI is a more effective tool because it’s specifically targeted. If you just open more seats for high poverty neighborhood school zones, it doesn’t follow that those who’d apply would be the lower income families. If ATS grows, the VPI slots should grow proportionately. And then maybe for 1-5 lottery slots they’d need a targeted policy to favor students eligible for fr/l who didn’t win the K or VPI lotteries.

Growing VPI should happen proportionally but not until there is a surplus of space in schools. K-5 should be a priority. I think a FR/L lottery preference would be better to start with, for all grades (if there are seats to fill as there may be if ATS goes to McKinley) but especially for incoming Kindergarteners. Not a neighborhood school preference, but specifically a FR/L preference regardless of neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

I understand Tuckahoe Bear and McKrazy. What do we call the ATS parents with listening and reading comprehension problems that are still peddling their saveATS petition despite the fact that their program isn't going to be demolished?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand Tuckahoe Bear and McKrazy. What do we call the ATS parents with listening and reading comprehension problems that are still peddling their saveATS petition despite the fact that their program isn't going to be demolished?

AsshATS? Do these people really exist?

[Anonymous]

I think you guys are missing the point. First - very low income kids aren't gonna want to schlep all the way up to Tuckahoe. There is no high poverty community anywhere near there. They were already freaking out about moving a mile from Key to ATS. Now you wanna move ATS to the far reaches of the county and what - tell all the people in affordable housing along Columbia Pike that they can take 2 buses and a Metro to pick up their kids from after care?

And 2nd - South Arlington schools are a shit-show and the only thing keeping Middle Class/UMC buy-in is option spaces. If you move the highest rated option school to a place where it is virtually inaccessible for all but the very rich AND or take away option spots via VPI and reserve slots based on FRL - you are going to have a massive rebellion of the MC/ UMC South Arlington and East Arlington families (who will also be pissed by an ATS move to Tuckahoe).

I know you think that the MC is just a group of annoying whiners who you wish would just move away so their existence wouldn't inconvenience you - but this is still the wrong play for everyone in the County - unless you think full lottery for every school in the county is gonna go great for you. APS staff is already floating the idea. One of the School Board candidates is running on the idea. Give every Middle Class person in Arlington a reason to F it and get on board with a lottery because its the only way their kids even have a chance. I promise you you won't love the result.