APS - Who is running for School Board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I agree on this which is why I was pro-move this time, but I also worry that APS is not really spending the money on this that is needed. How many full time APS people are working on these data, and how much training they have, how good is their software, etc.?

I get the impression we are under-staffed on this. It doesn't mean we never do anything, but again, to me that's the credible reason you might actually want to delay it.

Good luck. With the number of kids we are adding every year, the budget goes up by millions, and every time they do a step increase or COLA the budget goes up by millions. They have to make cuts elsewhere just to cover the teachers, let alone everything else. The last thing the Superintendent can put in the budget is MORE CENTRAL ADMIN POSITIONS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I think the biggest piece of uncertainty here is the assumptions they make regarding how many kids stick with the immersion program when it moves. If they assume everyone sticks with the program, then no-brainer, moves make a lot of sense. If you assume 60% stick the with program, then maybe it makes sense still, because there would still be room at Key for at least the more disadvantaged parts of the key walk zone and some of Rosslyn. If you assume no one stays with immersion, including the english speakers, then most of Rosslyn doesn't end up at key, they still end up having to go to Long Branch or Taylor (since they can't get bussed past key to asfs, and apparently asfs will be filled with kids from the ashlawn tail). If they honor the Key walk zone, then very little of Rosslyn ends up at key, most of them go to Taylor or Long Branch (since the key walk zone goes primarily west). Especially if you have to leave room for pre-K.

I am pro-move because long term wise, we need to have another elementary school in the eastern part of the county. But they are flying blind on drawing a boundary, since there is so much uncertainty with how things will shake out with the immersion move. Its very possible that a large chunk of the kids in apartments around key moved there specifically for immersion, and they may literally move with the program to a new apartment over by ats. I've heard three families say this personally. Its all very unclear.
Since you can't move kids once they've been moved, there is no margin for error here either, since everyone at neighborhood school key will have to stay there for at least five years. They can mitigate some of this by drawing a fuzzier boundary (having an upper/lower school for the entire eastern part of the county that is basically just current asfs + the taylor parts of the asfs and key walk zone), but according to aem, that's off the table. So I can understand some of the concerns about the data -- I personally don't trust APS staff to not screw this up, and it will take a lot of advocating from individual neighborhoods to make sure that they don't either completely empty out or overcrowd the new school at key. This entire thing is a mess of their own making -- people brought up that the change to the enrollments and transfers would create a unsustainable situation, but APSignored them at the time. People brought up that they were leaving Hamm underfilled at the time, APS ignored them there as well. There isn't a long history of APS making good decisions as far as the eastern part of the county is concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I think the biggest piece of uncertainty here is the assumptions they make regarding how many kids stick with the immersion program when it moves. If they assume everyone sticks with the program, then no-brainer, moves make a lot of sense. If you assume 60% stick the with program, then maybe it makes sense still, because there would still be room at Key for at least the more disadvantaged parts of the key walk zone and some of Rosslyn. If you assume no one stays with immersion, including the english speakers, then most of Rosslyn doesn't end up at key, they still end up having to go to Long Branch or Taylor (since they can't get bussed past key to asfs, and apparently asfs will be filled with kids from the ashlawn tail). If they honor the Key walk zone, then very little of Rosslyn ends up at key, most of them go to Taylor or Long Branch (since the key walk zone goes primarily west). Especially if you have to leave room for pre-K.

I am pro-move because long term wise, we need to have another elementary school in the eastern part of the county. But they are flying blind on drawing a boundary, since there is so much uncertainty with how things will shake out with the immersion move. Its very possible that a large chunk of the kids in apartments around key moved there specifically for immersion, and they may literally move with the program to a new apartment over by ats. I've heard three families say this personally. Its all very unclear.
Since you can't move kids once they've been moved, there is no margin for error here either, since everyone at neighborhood school key will have to stay there for at least five years. They can mitigate some of this by drawing a fuzzier boundary (having an upper/lower school for the entire eastern part of the county that is basically just current asfs + the taylor parts of the asfs and key walk zone), but according to aem, that's off the table. So I can understand some of the concerns about the data -- I personally don't trust APS staff to not screw this up, and it will take a lot of advocating from individual neighborhoods to make sure that they don't either completely empty out or overcrowd the new school at key. This entire thing is a mess of their own making -- people brought up that the change to the enrollments and transfers would create a unsustainable situation, but APSignored them at the time. People brought up that they were leaving Hamm underfilled at the time, APS ignored them there as well. There isn't a long history of APS making good decisions as far as the eastern part of the county is concerned.

Regarding not moving kids twice, I noticed that staff’s stated goal is not currently “it can’t happen,” but “we will do our best to avoid it.”

Regarding Hamm, middle school is only 3 years. Staff can tweak those boundaries soon without moving any kids twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I think the biggest piece of uncertainty here is the assumptions they make regarding how many kids stick with the immersion program when it moves. If they assume everyone sticks with the program, then no-brainer, moves make a lot of sense. If you assume 60% stick the with program, then maybe it makes sense still, because there would still be room at Key for at least the more disadvantaged parts of the key walk zone and some of Rosslyn. If you assume no one stays with immersion, including the english speakers, then most of Rosslyn doesn't end up at key, they still end up having to go to Long Branch or Taylor (since they can't get bussed past key to asfs, and apparently asfs will be filled with kids from the ashlawn tail). If they honor the Key walk zone, then very little of Rosslyn ends up at key, most of them go to Taylor or Long Branch (since the key walk zone goes primarily west). Especially if you have to leave room for pre-K.

I am pro-move because long term wise, we need to have another elementary school in the eastern part of the county. But they are flying blind on drawing a boundary, since there is so much uncertainty with how things will shake out with the immersion move. Its very possible that a large chunk of the kids in apartments around key moved there specifically for immersion, and they may literally move with the program to a new apartment over by ats. I've heard three families say this personally. Its all very unclear.
Since you can't move kids once they've been moved, there is no margin for error here either, since everyone at neighborhood school key will have to stay there for at least five years. They can mitigate some of this by drawing a fuzzier boundary (having an upper/lower school for the entire eastern part of the county that is basically just current asfs + the taylor parts of the asfs and key walk zone), but according to aem, that's off the table. So I can understand some of the concerns about the data -- I personally don't trust APS staff to not screw this up, and it will take a lot of advocating from individual neighborhoods to make sure that they don't either completely empty out or overcrowd the new school at key. This entire thing is a mess of their own making -- people brought up that the change to the enrollments and transfers would create a unsustainable situation, but APSignored them at the time. People brought up that they were leaving Hamm underfilled at the time, APS ignored them there as well. There isn't a long history of APS making good decisions as far as the eastern part of the county is concerned.

Regarding not moving kids twice, I noticed that staff’s stated goal is not currently “it can’t happen,” but “we will do our best to avoid it.”

Regarding Hamm, middle school is only 3 years. Staff can tweak those boundaries soon without moving any kids twice.

You are missing my point. Lots of people wanted to be zoned for Hamm -- staff said that there was no room because they assumed that 0% of immersion students would continue to middle school immersion at Gunston. At the time, people pointed to that as a bad assumption, but APS staff dug in. They said that people would value "the proximity of Hamm" versus Williamsburg/Swanson, and that they wouldn't go to Gunston. That was a bad assumption. They were told at the time that that whole line of thinking made no sense. I feel confident that they could make accurate boundaries for Hamm now because they know the rate at which people would pick Hamm versus continuing in immersion since they have at least 1 data point.

There is a good chance that APS staff will screw up the boundary around Key. They will either make it too small, in which case a lot of the people the moves were supposed to benefit end up in the same place that they would have without moving the immersion school. Or they will make it too big, in which case they will move some of those kids twice trying to correct their mistake. Or since the entire asfs boundary is mostly apartments, a large number of people mass migrate. A lot of people moved to courthouse/clarendon/rosslyn to attend science focus. An equal number moved there for key. They have no idea if those people will up and move if their neighborhood doesn't stay designated for their school of choice.

The smart thing would be to move immersion, see how many people move with it, and then draw a boundary. They can't afford to leave a building empty though. So the next smartest thing would be to draw a large boundary which moves as few people as possible for key and science focus, and then revise it in two years once they have more data about how many people stick with immersion. Apparently they aren't going to do that though. according to people on aem.

APS will likely screw the boundary up. A lot of people who think they are going to be at the new school at Key will likely be at Taylor or Long Branch. It will take a lot of neighborhood activism to avoid that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I think the biggest piece of uncertainty here is the assumptions they make regarding how many kids stick with the immersion program when it moves. If they assume everyone sticks with the program, then no-brainer, moves make a lot of sense. If you assume 60% stick the with program, then maybe it makes sense still, because there would still be room at Key for at least the more disadvantaged parts of the key walk zone and some of Rosslyn. If you assume no one stays with immersion, including the english speakers, then most of Rosslyn doesn't end up at key, they still end up having to go to Long Branch or Taylor (since they can't get bussed past key to asfs, and apparently asfs will be filled with kids from the ashlawn tail). If they honor the Key walk zone, then very little of Rosslyn ends up at key, most of them go to Taylor or Long Branch (since the key walk zone goes primarily west). Especially if you have to leave room for pre-K.

I am pro-move because long term wise, we need to have another elementary school in the eastern part of the county. But they are flying blind on drawing a boundary, since there is so much uncertainty with how things will shake out with the immersion move. Its very possible that a large chunk of the kids in apartments around key moved there specifically for immersion, and they may literally move with the program to a new apartment over by ats. I've heard three families say this personally. Its all very unclear.
Since you can't move kids once they've been moved, there is no margin for error here either, since everyone at neighborhood school key will have to stay there for at least five years. They can mitigate some of this by drawing a fuzzier boundary (having an upper/lower school for the entire eastern part of the county that is basically just current asfs + the taylor parts of the asfs and key walk zone), but according to aem, that's off the table. So I can understand some of the concerns about the data -- I personally don't trust APS staff to not screw this up, and it will take a lot of advocating from individual neighborhoods to make sure that they don't either completely empty out or overcrowd the new school at key. This entire thing is a mess of their own making -- people brought up that the change to the enrollments and transfers would create a unsustainable situation, but APSignored them at the time. People brought up that they were leaving Hamm underfilled at the time, APS ignored them there as well. There isn't a long history of APS making good decisions as far as the eastern part of the county is concerned.

Regarding not moving kids twice, I noticed that staff’s stated goal is not currently “it can’t happen,” but “we will do our best to avoid it.”

Regarding Hamm, middle school is only 3 years. Staff can tweak those boundaries soon without moving any kids twice.

You are missing my point. Lots of people wanted to be zoned for Hamm -- staff said that there was no room because they assumed that 0% of immersion students would continue to middle school immersion at Gunston. At the time, people pointed to that as a bad assumption, but APS staff dug in. They said that people would value "the proximity of Hamm" versus Williamsburg/Swanson, and that they wouldn't go to Gunston. That was a bad assumption. They were told at the time that that whole line of thinking made no sense. I feel confident that they could make accurate boundaries for Hamm now because they know the rate at which people would pick Hamm versus continuing in immersion since they have at least 1 data point.

There is a good chance that APS staff will screw up the boundary around Key. They will either make it too small, in which case a lot of the people the moves were supposed to benefit end up in the same place that they would have without moving the immersion school. Or they will make it too big, in which case they will move some of those kids twice trying to correct their mistake. Or since the entire asfs boundary is mostly apartments, a large number of people mass migrate. A lot of people moved to courthouse/clarendon/rosslyn to attend science focus. An equal number moved there for key. They have no idea if those people will up and move if their neighborhood doesn't stay designated for their school of choice.

The smart thing would be to move immersion, see how many people move with it, and then draw a boundary. They can't afford to leave a building empty though. So the next smartest thing would be to draw a large boundary which moves as few people as possible for key and science focus, and then revise it in two years once they have more data about how many people stick with immersion. Apparently they aren't going to do that though. according to people on aem.

APS will likely screw the boundary up. A lot of people who think they are going to be at the new school at Key will likely be at Taylor or Long Branch. It will take a lot of neighborhood activism to avoid that.

Long Branch is a likely option. As indicated in the proposal 1 example map.

ASFS is another likely option. It's fairly close and would also leave the option to change boundary for those kids later if Key does end up with extra capacity.

It's highly unlikely they will assign significant #s to Taylor (that aren't already Taylor). Everything above Lee Hwy could a possibility and maybe they'd send a new building or two coming online up there, but I highly doubt they will dip below Lee Hwy. They are more likely to push/keep those PUs at ASFS. On the northern section, they could keep some current Taylor PUs at Taylor and ASFS PUs at ASFS giving them the option to change boundaries later if Key and ASFS end up with extra capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I think the biggest piece of uncertainty here is the assumptions they make regarding how many kids stick with the immersion program when it moves. If they assume everyone sticks with the program, then no-brainer, moves make a lot of sense. If you assume 60% stick the with program, then maybe it makes sense still, because there would still be room at Key for at least the more disadvantaged parts of the key walk zone and some of Rosslyn. If you assume no one stays with immersion, including the english speakers, then most of Rosslyn doesn't end up at key, they still end up having to go to Long Branch or Taylor (since they can't get bussed past key to asfs, and apparently asfs will be filled with kids from the ashlawn tail). If they honor the Key walk zone, then very little of Rosslyn ends up at key, most of them go to Taylor or Long Branch (since the key walk zone goes primarily west). Especially if you have to leave room for pre-K.

I am pro-move because long term wise, we need to have another elementary school in the eastern part of the county. But they are flying blind on drawing a boundary, since there is so much uncertainty with how things will shake out with the immersion move. Its very possible that a large chunk of the kids in apartments around key moved there specifically for immersion, and they may literally move with the program to a new apartment over by ats. I've heard three families say this personally. Its all very unclear.
Since you can't move kids once they've been moved, there is no margin for error here either, since everyone at neighborhood school key will have to stay there for at least five years. They can mitigate some of this by drawing a fuzzier boundary (having an upper/lower school for the entire eastern part of the county that is basically just current asfs + the taylor parts of the asfs and key walk zone), but according to aem, that's off the table. So I can understand some of the concerns about the data -- I personally don't trust APS staff to not screw this up, and it will take a lot of advocating from individual neighborhoods to make sure that they don't either completely empty out or overcrowd the new school at key. This entire thing is a mess of their own making -- people brought up that the change to the enrollments and transfers would create a unsustainable situation, but APSignored them at the time. People brought up that they were leaving Hamm underfilled at the time, APS ignored them there as well. There isn't a long history of APS making good decisions as far as the eastern part of the county is concerned.

Really? Are these the low-income families? I don't think most low-income families in immersion chose their apartment based on getting into immersion. You don't have many choices when you are low-income. Plus, any such families are dwindling because there are no more neighborhood guaranteed admissions to a program. It's most likely that low-income families picked their apartments based on familiarity/availability/walkability to Key with or without immersion. If they want and can move closer to ATS to stay in immersion, go ahead. What do they do when their kids reach middle school? Are they going to move to the Berkeley so they can be across the street from Gunston, or will they drop out of immersion?



I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you vote for Cristina when she did not weigh in on this at all? Failing to give an opinion is not a good option, it gives the appearance of being indifferent and therefore further proving the point that this is a stepping stone for her and not something she cares about.

She probably knows nothing about it so can’t constructively weigh in...

Did any candidates come in out favor of the moves? I didn't seen any but maybe missed it.

I'm disappointed in those who came out in favor of no moves but I'm going to move on and vote based on other things. This is hardly the only issue in APS.

It's definitely not the only issue, but the school board made a choice that did what people have been saying they wanted - a holistic look a the county without caving to people wearing matching shirts. I would like new board members to be willing to do that on a multitude of issues.

Oh, what a great way of looking at it!
Clearly Key didn't want that - they kept wearing their red shirts....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I agree on this which is why I was pro-move this time, but I also worry that APS is not really spending the money on this that is needed. How many full time APS people are working on these data, and how much training they have, how good is their software, etc.?

I get the impression we are under-staffed on this. It doesn't mean we never do anything, but again, to me that's the credible reason you might actually want to delay it.

We ARE under-staffed on this. But nobody will let them increase class sizes in favor of increasing central office staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sandy Munnell also posted a statement in favor of Key on Key. Am I really going to have to vote for Christina? https://sandyforschools.nationbuilder.com/key

Not until someone asks her straight out what her position is and gets a straight answer.

If I were running, I would not take a position on this. You alienate a whole slew of voters no matter which side you decide to proclaim to support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I think the biggest piece of uncertainty here is the assumptions they make regarding how many kids stick with the immersion program when it moves. If they assume everyone sticks with the program, then no-brainer, moves make a lot of sense. If you assume 60% stick the with program, then maybe it makes sense still, because there would still be room at Key for at least the more disadvantaged parts of the key walk zone and some of Rosslyn. If you assume no one stays with immersion, including the english speakers, then most of Rosslyn doesn't end up at key, they still end up having to go to Long Branch or Taylor (since they can't get bussed past key to asfs, and apparently asfs will be filled with kids from the ashlawn tail). If they honor the Key walk zone, then very little of Rosslyn ends up at key, most of them go to Taylor or Long Branch (since the key walk zone goes primarily west). Especially if you have to leave room for pre-K.

I am pro-move because long term wise, we need to have another elementary school in the eastern part of the county. But they are flying blind on drawing a boundary, since there is so much uncertainty with how things will shake out with the immersion move. Its very possible that a large chunk of the kids in apartments around key moved there specifically for immersion, and they may literally move with the program to a new apartment over by ats. I've heard three families say this personally. Its all very unclear.
Since you can't move kids once they've been moved, there is no margin for error here either, since everyone at neighborhood school key will have to stay there for at least five years. They can mitigate some of this by drawing a fuzzier boundary (having an upper/lower school for the entire eastern part of the county that is basically just current asfs + the taylor parts of the asfs and key walk zone), but according to aem, that's off the table. So I can understand some of the concerns about the data -- I personally don't trust APS staff to not screw this up, and it will take a lot of advocating from individual neighborhoods to make sure that they don't either completely empty out or overcrowd the new school at key. This entire thing is a mess of their own making -- people brought up that the change to the enrollments and transfers would create a unsustainable situation, but APSignored them at the time. People brought up that they were leaving Hamm underfilled at the time, APS ignored them there as well. There isn't a long history of APS making good decisions as far as the eastern part of the county is concerned.

Really? Are these the low-income families? I don't think most low-income families in immersion chose their apartment based on getting into immersion. You don't have many choices when you are low-income. Plus, any such families are dwindling because there are no more neighborhood guaranteed admissions to a program. It's most likely that low-income families picked their apartments based on familiarity/availability/walkability to Key with or without immersion. If they want and can move closer to ATS to stay in immersion, go ahead. What do they do when their kids reach middle school? Are they going to move to the Berkeley so they can be across the street from Gunston, or will they drop out of immersion?



I

There were two spanish speakers from woodbury park last year that said that they moved to Arlington because of the immersion program. I'm not sure if they were making that up or not, but I do know a lot of parents from woodbury park who go to asfs who chose to live there because it was zoned for asfs. Not sure if they would move or not or if they have options to move elsewhere. I feel like its rude to ask.
I know a lot of not low income families that moved to the neighborhood because of asfs, a lot of people purposely picked their apartments because asfs is a high performing diverse school. I also know a lot of not low income families that moved to courthouse to be near key after their kids lotteried in.
I'm not saying that those people will move or not, but you have to admit that there is a lot of uncertainty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I think the biggest piece of uncertainty here is the assumptions they make regarding how many kids stick with the immersion program when it moves. If they assume everyone sticks with the program, then no-brainer, moves make a lot of sense. If you assume 60% stick the with program, then maybe it makes sense still, because there would still be room at Key for at least the more disadvantaged parts of the key walk zone and some of Rosslyn. If you assume no one stays with immersion, including the english speakers, then most of Rosslyn doesn't end up at key, they still end up having to go to Long Branch or Taylor (since they can't get bussed past key to asfs, and apparently asfs will be filled with kids from the ashlawn tail). If they honor the Key walk zone, then very little of Rosslyn ends up at key, most of them go to Taylor or Long Branch (since the key walk zone goes primarily west). Especially if you have to leave room for pre-K.

I am pro-move because long term wise, we need to have another elementary school in the eastern part of the county. But they are flying blind on drawing a boundary, since there is so much uncertainty with how things will shake out with the immersion move. Its very possible that a large chunk of the kids in apartments around key moved there specifically for immersion, and they may literally move with the program to a new apartment over by ats. I've heard three families say this personally. Its all very unclear.
Since you can't move kids once they've been moved, there is no margin for error here either, since everyone at neighborhood school key will have to stay there for at least five years. They can mitigate some of this by drawing a fuzzier boundary (having an upper/lower school for the entire eastern part of the county that is basically just current asfs + the taylor parts of the asfs and key walk zone), but according to aem, that's off the table. So I can understand some of the concerns about the data -- I personally don't trust APS staff to not screw this up, and it will take a lot of advocating from individual neighborhoods to make sure that they don't either completely empty out or overcrowd the new school at key. This entire thing is a mess of their own making -- people brought up that the change to the enrollments and transfers would create a unsustainable situation, but APSignored them at the time. People brought up that they were leaving Hamm underfilled at the time, APS ignored them there as well. There isn't a long history of APS making good decisions as far as the eastern part of the county is concerned.

Really? Are these the low-income families? I don't think most low-income families in immersion chose their apartment based on getting into immersion. You don't have many choices when you are low-income. Plus, any such families are dwindling because there are no more neighborhood guaranteed admissions to a program. It's most likely that low-income families picked their apartments based on familiarity/availability/walkability to Key with or without immersion. If they want and can move closer to ATS to stay in immersion, go ahead. What do they do when their kids reach middle school? Are they going to move to the Berkeley so they can be across the street from Gunston, or will they drop out of immersion?



I

Stop ranting, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you vote for Cristina when she did not weigh in on this at all? Failing to give an opinion is not a good option, it gives the appearance of being indifferent and therefore further proving the point that this is a stepping stone for her and not something she cares about.

She probably knows nothing about it so can’t constructively weigh in...

Did any candidates come in out favor of the moves? I didn't seen any but maybe missed it.

I'm disappointed in those who came out in favor of no moves but I'm going to move on and vote based on other things. This is hardly the only issue in APS.

It's definitely not the only issue, but the school board made a choice that did what people have been saying they wanted - a holistic look a the county without caving to people wearing matching shirts. I would like new board members to be willing to do that on a multitude of issues.

Oh, what a great way of looking at it!
Clearly Key didn't want that - they kept wearing their red shirts....

They really are cool shirts, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I think the biggest piece of uncertainty here is the assumptions they make regarding how many kids stick with the immersion program when it moves. If they assume everyone sticks with the program, then no-brainer, moves make a lot of sense. If you assume 60% stick the with program, then maybe it makes sense still, because there would still be room at Key for at least the more disadvantaged parts of the key walk zone and some of Rosslyn. If you assume no one stays with immersion, including the english speakers, then most of Rosslyn doesn't end up at key, they still end up having to go to Long Branch or Taylor (since they can't get bussed past key to asfs, and apparently asfs will be filled with kids from the ashlawn tail). If they honor the Key walk zone, then very little of Rosslyn ends up at key, most of them go to Taylor or Long Branch (since the key walk zone goes primarily west). Especially if you have to leave room for pre-K.

I am pro-move because long term wise, we need to have another elementary school in the eastern part of the county. But they are flying blind on drawing a boundary, since there is so much uncertainty with how things will shake out with the immersion move. Its very possible that a large chunk of the kids in apartments around key moved there specifically for immersion, and they may literally move with the program to a new apartment over by ats. I've heard three families say this personally. Its all very unclear.
Since you can't move kids once they've been moved, there is no margin for error here either, since everyone at neighborhood school key will have to stay there for at least five years. They can mitigate some of this by drawing a fuzzier boundary (having an upper/lower school for the entire eastern part of the county that is basically just current asfs + the taylor parts of the asfs and key walk zone), but according to aem, that's off the table. So I can understand some of the concerns about the data -- I personally don't trust APS staff to not screw this up, and it will take a lot of advocating from individual neighborhoods to make sure that they don't either completely empty out or overcrowd the new school at key. This entire thing is a mess of their own making -- people brought up that the change to the enrollments and transfers would create a unsustainable situation, but APSignored them at the time. People brought up that they were leaving Hamm underfilled at the time, APS ignored them there as well. There isn't a long history of APS making good decisions as far as the eastern part of the county is concerned.

Really? Are these the low-income families? I don't think most low-income families in immersion chose their apartment based on getting into immersion. You don't have many choices when you are low-income. Plus, any such families are dwindling because there are no more neighborhood guaranteed admissions to a program. It's most likely that low-income families picked their apartments based on familiarity/availability/walkability to Key with or without immersion. If they want and can move closer to ATS to stay in immersion, go ahead. What do they do when their kids reach middle school? Are they going to move to the Berkeley so they can be across the street from Gunston, or will they drop out of immersion?



I

Stop ranting, please.

I'm not ranting. I supported the moves. I just don't see a lot of low-income Spanish speaking families moving closer to ATS so they can stay in the program; so I'd like to know whether these families are low-income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I think the biggest piece of uncertainty here is the assumptions they make regarding how many kids stick with the immersion program when it moves. If they assume everyone sticks with the program, then no-brainer, moves make a lot of sense. If you assume 60% stick the with program, then maybe it makes sense still, because there would still be room at Key for at least the more disadvantaged parts of the key walk zone and some of Rosslyn. If you assume no one stays with immersion, including the english speakers, then most of Rosslyn doesn't end up at key, they still end up having to go to Long Branch or Taylor (since they can't get bussed past key to asfs, and apparently asfs will be filled with kids from the ashlawn tail). If they honor the Key walk zone, then very little of Rosslyn ends up at key, most of them go to Taylor or Long Branch (since the key walk zone goes primarily west). Especially if you have to leave room for pre-K.

I am pro-move because long term wise, we need to have another elementary school in the eastern part of the county. But they are flying blind on drawing a boundary, since there is so much uncertainty with how things will shake out with the immersion move. Its very possible that a large chunk of the kids in apartments around key moved there specifically for immersion, and they may literally move with the program to a new apartment over by ats. I've heard three families say this personally. Its all very unclear.
Since you can't move kids once they've been moved, there is no margin for error here either, since everyone at neighborhood school key will have to stay there for at least five years. They can mitigate some of this by drawing a fuzzier boundary (having an upper/lower school for the entire eastern part of the county that is basically just current asfs + the taylor parts of the asfs and key walk zone), but according to aem, that's off the table. So I can understand some of the concerns about the data -- I personally don't trust APS staff to not screw this up, and it will take a lot of advocating from individual neighborhoods to make sure that they don't either completely empty out or overcrowd the new school at key. This entire thing is a mess of their own making -- people brought up that the change to the enrollments and transfers would create a unsustainable situation, but APSignored them at the time. People brought up that they were leaving Hamm underfilled at the time, APS ignored them there as well. There isn't a long history of APS making good decisions as far as the eastern part of the county is concerned.

They under filled Hamm b/c they knew construction was not going to be done. It’s over a year late, that isn’t just rain delays, they knew it would be too small for the first year open but didn’t want to acknowledge it b/c drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate, I was pro-move, but I can see taking a stand against it on two grounds that might be justifiable:

1) Not being convinced APS really has the correct data or is properly resourced to make these decisions

2) Not knowing whether school moves will make us more or less segregated

To me this is just a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for people who don't like what APS is proposing. The data will always be wrong and untrustworthy and not enough for some people. Have staff screwed up before? Sure. Will they make mistakes going forward? Sure. I thought they were pretty damn transparent this go around about the date they were using and what they've done to try to fix past errors.

I can tell you I trust APS staff more than the armchair warriors that put together the crazy alternative maps.

I think the biggest piece of uncertainty here is the assumptions they make regarding how many kids stick with the immersion program when it moves. If they assume everyone sticks with the program, then no-brainer, moves make a lot of sense. If you assume 60% stick the with program, then maybe it makes sense still, because there would still be room at Key for at least the more disadvantaged parts of the key walk zone and some of Rosslyn. If you assume no one stays with immersion, including the english speakers, then most of Rosslyn doesn't end up at key, they still end up having to go to Long Branch or Taylor (since they can't get bussed past key to asfs, and apparently asfs will be filled with kids from the ashlawn tail). If they honor the Key walk zone, then very little of Rosslyn ends up at key, most of them go to Taylor or Long Branch (since the key walk zone goes primarily west). Especially if you have to leave room for pre-K.

I am pro-move because long term wise, we need to have another elementary school in the eastern part of the county. But they are flying blind on drawing a boundary, since there is so much uncertainty with how things will shake out with the immersion move. Its very possible that a large chunk of the kids in apartments around key moved there specifically for immersion, and they may literally move with the program to a new apartment over by ats. I've heard three families say this personally. Its all very unclear.
Since you can't move kids once they've been moved, there is no margin for error here either, since everyone at neighborhood school key will have to stay there for at least five years. They can mitigate some of this by drawing a fuzzier boundary (having an upper/lower school for the entire eastern part of the county that is basically just current asfs + the taylor parts of the asfs and key walk zone), but according to aem, that's off the table. So I can understand some of the concerns about the data -- I personally don't trust APS staff to not screw this up, and it will take a lot of advocating from individual neighborhoods to make sure that they don't either completely empty out or overcrowd the new school at key. This entire thing is a mess of their own making -- people brought up that the change to the enrollments and transfers would create a unsustainable situation, but APSignored them at the time. People brought up that they were leaving Hamm underfilled at the time, APS ignored them there as well. There isn't a long history of APS making good decisions as far as the eastern part of the county is concerned.

Really? Are these the low-income families? I don't think most low-income families in immersion chose their apartment based on getting into immersion. You don't have many choices when you are low-income. Plus, any such families are dwindling because there are no more neighborhood guaranteed admissions to a program. It's most likely that low-income families picked their apartments based on familiarity/availability/walkability to Key with or without immersion. If they want and can move closer to ATS to stay in immersion, go ahead. What do they do when their kids reach middle school? Are they going to move to the Berkeley so they can be across the street from Gunston, or will they drop out of immersion?



I

Stop ranting, please.

I'm not ranting. I supported the moves. I just don't see a lot of low-income Spanish speaking families moving closer to ATS so they can stay in the program; so I'd like to know whether these families are low-income.

Yeah, if you are in CAF housing I assume moving is VERY complicated.