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

[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.

Move Key to Tuckahoe. A little bit tougher pill for current Key families to swallow than Option 1, but bigger net gain for APS as a whole.

Moving an option program to tuckahoe is a terrible idea because the school cannot accommodate growth. It is only safely allowed
To have the trailers they have now. Our option programs need to be at sites that can take more kids when there are capacity issues. They absolutely shouldn’t get to hide in a growth locked location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed plus two school board members are retiring. Perfect time for vote popular to most except a few who are also very vocal.

I think these factors could cut, logically, in either direction.

[Anonymous]

board will punt and so nothing. No moves, no boundary changes. Reed gets mothballed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Literally VPI

IN ADDITION to the VPI kids. VPI preference for K and then additional preference for FR/L kids that didn't get into VPI the year before.

Pretty sure APS was sued for a similar policy at HBW.

They were sued in the late 90s for considering the implementation of a weighted lottery. White parents literally crying over how it wasn't fair. Back then, it wasn't as trendy to be liberal.

[Anonymous]

Meant to add the weighted lottery was for elementary option schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Literally VPI

IN ADDITION to the VPI kids. VPI preference for K and then additional preference for FR/L kids that didn't get into VPI the year before.

Pretty sure APS was sued for a similar policy at HBW.

I think you’re referring to the lawsuit brought about by a parent against ATS, which had a lottery with racial preference (not economic status policy). It went to the Supreme Court, and that ended the former ATS lottery policy, and led to the HB lottery being changed to a neighborhood seat allocation.

The VPI thing works, as long as every option school continues to have a couple VPI classrooms (they all do now). HB’s newly revised policy that separates out option and neighborhood schools and kids from private ES has led to a (modest) bump in diversity. I think the new location will make it more diverse over time, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moving an option program to tuckahoe is a terrible idea because the school cannot accommodate growth. It is only safely allowed
To have the trailers they have now. Our option programs need to be at sites that can take more kids when there are capacity issues. They absolutely shouldn’t get to hide in a growth locked location.

Growing option programs should not be a priority. This results in more transportation needs which is a problem as is. Focus on neighborhood schools. Moving ATS to Tuckahoe helps the largest number of neighborhood school students which should be the priority. Lack of growth at Tuckahoe is not a good argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving an option program to tuckahoe is a terrible idea because the school cannot accommodate growth. It is only safely allowed
To have the trailers they have now. Our option programs need to be at sites that can take more kids when there are capacity issues. They absolutely shouldn’t get to hide in a growth locked location.

Growing option programs should not be a priority. This results in more transportation needs which is a problem as is. Focus on neighborhood schools. Moving ATS to Tuckahoe helps the largest number of neighborhood school students which should be the priority. Lack of growth at Tuckahoe is not a good argument.

The neighborhood school numbers will be fine with ATS at McKinley. No need to artificially constrain ATS just so someone else’s kid can move rather than yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Literally VPI

IN ADDITION to the VPI kids. VPI preference for K and then additional preference for FR/L kids that didn't get into VPI the year before.

Pretty sure APS was sued for a similar policy at HBW.

I think you’re referring to the lawsuit brought about by a parent against ATS, which had a lottery with racial preference (not economic status policy). It went to the Supreme Court, and that ended the former ATS lottery policy, and led to the HB lottery being changed to a neighborhood seat allocation.

The VPI thing works, as long as every option school continues to have a couple VPI classrooms (they all do now). HB’s newly revised policy that separates out option and neighborhood schools and kids from private ES has led to a (modest) bump in diversity. I think the new location will make it more diverse over time, too.

HBW and ATS were sued together, for favoring minorities in the lottery. As the lawsuit made its way through the courts there were proposals to change the system from giving more weight to minorities to giving more weight to low income families, but the courts denied that as well. As I understand it.

[Anonymous]

My feeling is that part of the interest for ATS is due to its central location and accessibility. Wait list numbers after kindergarten are not too different from Campbell. Moving the program is a huge risk, and there's no guarantee that an immersion program is going to work there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My feeling is that part of the interest for ATS is due to its central location and accessibility. Wait list numbers after kindergarten are not too different from Campbell. Moving the program is a huge risk, and there's no guarantee that an immersion program is going to work there.

Well, we already know the status quo is unworkable, so moving them per proposal #1 is unlikely to make things worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP, but you could have more VPI at ATS and less at, say, Carlin Springs or Hoffman Boston.

Two questions:
1) why not more VPI at all underenrolled schools like D, J, N, etc.?
2) do more VPI families stay at ATS through 5th than at other schools like maybe Jamestown, if so, why?

APS found they couldn't fill Montessori preK at Nottingham. Those sites are the farthest from, and least accessible by, those who qualify for VPI. While it may be easy to say put option program "x" at Tuckahoe v McKinley or Discovery v ATS site; countywide accessibility is a factor in good location decisions. It is not strictly all about numbers of open seats in a given location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I tend to think that these moves won’t happen prior to the boundaries being redrawn. APS has talked in terms of exploring the moves and states that “any” moves would be in place for 3021. They have built in these weasel words.

Are you saying that you don’t think they’ll decide where schools should be moved until the boundary process, or that they’ll decide the locations now but not move schools until the new boundaries go into place? If the former, that’s contrary to everything they’re signaling. If the latter, um, of course, they can’t move schools until there are new boundaries drawn.

Uh, I thought they were moving places like Key prior to drawing the new boundaries.

They aren't physically moving the programs first and then doing boundaries - that's not physically possible. THey are deciding what moves will be made, deciding boundaries based on those locations, then everything happens when Reed opens in 2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The funny (not funny?) thing is that when APS eventually gets to the boundary part of this process so many people are going to feel just as screwed as the McKinley and Key parents, they just don’t know it yet. Moving the option programs is a bandaid on a gushing artery and whether options move or not, the real magic comes through the reassignment of planning units. Nothing in this plan addresses the shortage of seats, and moving the option programs shifts the relative burden of the problem while doing nothing to solve it. What a mess.

Yes - this is exactly the rationale; but you are missing the next point: by shifting some things around, APS can address the capacity #s with future projects more readily because they already KNOW they can do additions at certain schools and not others; that they have more options for expansion or new schools in some areas rather than others (NE); and relieving the NE part of the artery at least some now helps delay having to do something there that they know they are not prepared or able to do in the next 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Imagine if the only redrew boundaries for Reed and we ended up with horrible boundary options. Everyone would have complained that they didn’t plan ahead or look at a holistic solution.