The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections. Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.

+1. I can only assume that the people suggesting they draw boundaries now weren’t here/paying attention during the Discovery debacle.

+1

It has to be a 2 step process. I mean, can you imagine the *&%# show we would have if you tried to move options and draw boundaries at the same time. There would be 1000 different proposals.

I disagree. They could still just put out two proposals. Why would they need more? If they already have the data to know where to put the option schools based on “sensible” boundaries that maximize efficiency and walkability, let’s see them.

APS has failed to articulate why the option moves need to be set in stone before adjusting boundaries. What I foresee is the school board agreeing to move the option schools, and when it comes time to draw the boundaries and the resulting school populations exacerbate the already shameful demographic disparity between schools, they’ll say their hands are tied and there’s nothing they can do about it because they’re locked into the decision to move McKinley or Key or Campbell. They’re just setting up their excuse for lousy boundaries and making it seem like they lack the flexibility to do better.

APS school does not care about demographic disparity one lick. Too many other competing priorities. There is no solution we can afford, so move on.

No other competing priorities - they just don't care about demographics period.

Stop blaming the staff. The people who actually don’t care about demographics is the Arlington county Democratic Party, which runs the county board and is JV farm team, the school board. The ACDC’s sacred cow is subsidized housing, which is totally integrated into county business with developers. They want more more more as cheap as possible and that means swamping south Arlington with affordable housing, and playing dumb or calling you racist when you point out the segregation it has caused. Stop voting for these people if you care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I realize that we are all lucky to have good schools in Arlington (to various degrees), can I just say how annoying it is to hear McKinley parents complain about property values if they are rezoned to Tuckahoe?? Especially when some of us from other schools are facing the possibility of being rezoned to much worse schools than our current assignments??

Perhaps, then, you should stfu with the “much worse schools” bs, because you are no less annoying.

Complaining about property values is very different than complaining about the quality of the education for your children.

“We are all lucky to have good schools in Arlington....some of us from other schools are facing the possibility of being reasoned to much worse schools.”

Which is it?

Some schools are gooder than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not going to budge. They’ve sunk a lot of time and money into these proposals. They made a video! They planned this all summer. We might get a SB surprise. They love to do that. But staff won’t change course. That’s my prediction. And not sure they should. These are some pretty well thought plans.

The first plan is well thought out. The second one is not. It’s just too many moves and more than they really need to do to get reasonable boundaries around Reed. It also boxes them in for planning additions/new schools in the SW quadrant in the next CIP.

I disagree. The second plan was more thoughtful and nuanced - that's why more schools are involved!!

Where’s the nuance in moving a program away from the thing that makes it special and appealing just to take away neighborhood seats? Taking Carlin Springs offline isn’t smart until they have built a new school or addition in the SW quadrant. That’s why. Unlike the Key to ATS swap, this swap takes away neighborhood seats. It gives the bigger building to an option program. And either they plan to shrink the Campbell boundary, in which case many neighborhood kids will have to be bused to schools outside of their neighborhood not by choice, or they will put them in trailers rather than keep them in existing permanent seats until an adopted is built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not going to budge. They’ve sunk a lot of time and money into these proposals. They made a video! They planned this all summer. We might get a SB surprise. They love to do that. But staff won’t change course. That’s my prediction. And not sure they should. These are some pretty well thought plans.

The first plan is well thought out. The second one is not. It’s just too many moves and more than they really need to do to get reasonable boundaries around Reed. It also boxes them in for planning additions/new schools in the SW quadrant in the next CIP.

I disagree. The second plan was more thoughtful and nuanced - that's why more schools are involved!!

Where’s the nuance in moving a program away from the thing that makes it special and appealing just to take away neighborhood seats? Taking Carlin Springs offline isn’t smart until they have built a new school or addition in the SW quadrant. That’s why. Unlike the Key to ATS swap, this swap takes away neighborhood seats. It gives the bigger building to an option program. And either they plan to shrink the Campbell boundary, in which case many neighborhood kids will have to be bused to schools outside of their neighborhood not by choice, or they will put them in trailers rather than keep them in existing permanent seats until an adopted is built.

An addition is built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not going to budge. They’ve sunk a lot of time and money into these proposals. They made a video! They planned this all summer. We might get a SB surprise. They love to do that. But staff won’t change course. That’s my prediction. And not sure they should. These are some pretty well thought plans.

The first plan is well thought out. The second one is not. It’s just too many moves and more than they really need to do to get reasonable boundaries around Reed. It also boxes them in for planning additions/new schools in the SW quadrant in the next CIP.

I disagree. The second plan was more thoughtful and nuanced - that's why more schools are involved!!

Where’s the nuance in moving a program away from the thing that makes it special and appealing just to take away neighborhood seats? Taking Carlin Springs offline isn’t smart until they have built a new school or addition in the SW quadrant. That’s why. Unlike the Key to ATS swap, this swap takes away neighborhood seats. It gives the bigger building to an option program. And either they plan to shrink the Campbell boundary, in which case many neighborhood kids will have to be bused to schools outside of their neighborhood not by choice, or they will put them in trailers rather than keep them in existing permanent seats until an adopted is built.

Why are we dividing schools in these quadrants anyways? The N/S spilt is already a problem when it comes to diversity in our schools and yet we continue to make route 50 a hard border that can’t be crossed when planning boundaries. Why can’t they move to CS and send current CS kids north?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections. Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.

+1. I can only assume that the people suggesting they draw boundaries now weren’t here/paying attention during the Discovery debacle.

+1

It has to be a 2 step process. I mean, can you imagine the *&%# show we would have if you tried to move options and draw boundaries at the same time. There would be 1000 different proposals.

I disagree. They could still just put out two proposals. Why would they need more? If they already have the data to know where to put the option schools based on “sensible” boundaries that maximize efficiency and walkability, let’s see them.

APS has failed to articulate why the option moves need to be set in stone before adjusting boundaries. What I foresee is the school board agreeing to move the option schools, and when it comes time to draw the boundaries and the resulting school populations exacerbate the already shameful demographic disparity between schools, they’ll say their hands are tied and there’s nothing they can do about it because they’re locked into the decision to move McKinley or Key or Campbell. They’re just setting up their excuse for lousy boundaries and making it seem like they lack the flexibility to do better.

This! I am fine with them tentatively moving the options programs now but I can almost promise that when he get into the nitty gritty of the boundaries process later we have going to have a lot of schools with HUGE disparities in FRL numbers and a lot of it could probably be at least alleviated somewhat had they made different choices with the options.

For example the SW area of the county has almost all of the PU that are over 80% FRL. It’s contains all the schools about 50% with the exception of Barrett which is in a different quadrant.

There is absolutely no way to redraw that quadrant and make it more economically diverse without going across 50. But by putting all these option programs in the middle of the county (which sure make sense for accessibility of the schools) you make it so that NA schools stay North if 50 and SA schools stay south.

I can already see this boundary process where just like last time only one or to PUs can actually be moved to other schools and neighborhoods with blame each other instead of the county for the lack of foresight.

[Anonymous]

They. Do. Not. Care. You cannot get this Board to care about FRL percentages. They won't hear it. Just try raising that with VanDoren, Talento or O'Grady. I dare you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They. Do. Not. Care. You cannot get this Board to care about FRL percentages. They won't hear it. Just try raising that with VanDoren, Talento or O'Grady. I dare you.

Again: all of these people don’t care because they are Arlington Democratic Party regulars, and the party says, no complaining or drawing attention to how housing policy furthers historical segregation. It’s not a board problem, it’s a party problem. None of them care, except maybe Reid, a little. Talento’s appointed role is to explain why this segregation is actually advantageous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They. Do. Not. Care. You cannot get this Board to care about FRL percentages. They won't hear it. Just try raising that with VanDoren, Talento or O'Grady. I dare you.

or Kanninen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections. Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.

+1. I can only assume that the people suggesting they draw boundaries now weren’t here/paying attention during the Discovery debacle.

+1

It has to be a 2 step process. I mean, can you imagine the *&%# show we would have if you tried to move options and draw boundaries at the same time. There would be 1000 different proposals.

I disagree. They could still just put out two proposals. Why would they need more? If they already have the data to know where to put the option schools based on “sensible” boundaries that maximize efficiency and walkability, let’s see them.

APS has failed to articulate why the option moves need to be set in stone before adjusting boundaries. What I foresee is the school board agreeing to move the option schools, and when it comes time to draw the boundaries and the resulting school populations exacerbate the already shameful demographic disparity between schools, they’ll say their hands are tied and there’s nothing they can do about it because they’re locked into the decision to move McKinley or Key or Campbell. They’re just setting up their excuse for lousy boundaries and making it seem like they lack the flexibility to do better.

APS school does not care about demographic disparity one lick. Too many other competing priorities. There is no solution we can afford, so move on.

No other competing priorities - they just don't care about demographics period.

Stop blaming the staff. The people who actually don’t care about demographics is the Arlington county Democratic Party, which runs the county board and is JV farm team, the school board. The ACDC’s sacred cow is subsidized housing, which is totally integrated into county business with developers. They want more more more as cheap as possible and that means swamping south Arlington with affordable housing, and playing dumb or calling you racist when you point out the segregation it has caused. Stop voting for these people if you care.

I have. It doesn't matter until enough others also stop - and there are alternatives to vote FOR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not going to budge. They’ve sunk a lot of time and money into these proposals. They made a video! They planned this all summer. We might get a SB surprise. They love to do that. But staff won’t change course. That’s my prediction. And not sure they should. These are some pretty well thought plans.

The first plan is well thought out. The second one is not. It’s just too many moves and more than they really need to do to get reasonable boundaries around Reed. It also boxes them in for planning additions/new schools in the SW quadrant in the next CIP.

I disagree. The second plan was more thoughtful and nuanced - that's why more schools are involved!!

Where’s the nuance in moving a program away from the thing that makes it special and appealing just to take away neighborhood seats? Taking Carlin Springs offline isn’t smart until they have built a new school or addition in the SW quadrant. That’s why. Unlike the Key to ATS swap, this swap takes away neighborhood seats. It gives the bigger building to an option program. And either they plan to shrink the Campbell boundary, in which case many neighborhood kids will have to be bused to schools outside of their neighborhood not by choice, or they will put them in trailers rather than keep them in existing permanent seats until an adopted is built.

The idea is that many of those displaced Carlin Springs students will enter the immersion program. Then, CS' FRL goes down - and Campbell's goes up in its place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not going to budge. They’ve sunk a lot of time and money into these proposals. They made a video! They planned this all summer. We might get a SB surprise. They love to do that. But staff won’t change course. That’s my prediction. And not sure they should. These are some pretty well thought plans.

The first plan is well thought out. The second one is not. It’s just too many moves and more than they really need to do to get reasonable boundaries around Reed. It also boxes them in for planning additions/new schools in the SW quadrant in the next CIP.

I disagree. The second plan was more thoughtful and nuanced - that's why more schools are involved!!

Where’s the nuance in moving a program away from the thing that makes it special and appealing just to take away neighborhood seats? Taking Carlin Springs offline isn’t smart until they have built a new school or addition in the SW quadrant. That’s why. Unlike the Key to ATS swap, this swap takes away neighborhood seats. It gives the bigger building to an option program. And either they plan to shrink the Campbell boundary, in which case many neighborhood kids will have to be bused to schools outside of their neighborhood not by choice, or they will put them in trailers rather than keep them in existing permanent seats until an adopted is built.

The idea is that many of those displaced Carlin Springs students will enter the immersion program. Then, CS' FRL goes down - and Campbell's goes up in its place.

The “idea” is wishful thinking, since Campbell is walkable and Carlin isn’t. People go for easy every time.

[Anonymous]

Ah, the guilt trips have started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They. Do. Not. Care. You cannot get this Board to care about FRL percentages. They won't hear it. Just try raising that with VanDoren, Talento or O'Grady. I dare you.

They are all running for re-election next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They. Do. Not. Care. You cannot get this Board to care about FRL percentages. They won't hear it. Just try raising that with VanDoren, Talento or O'Grady. I dare you.

They are all running for re-election next year.

Dave, if you are reading, THIS is the year you should run.